OT: Texas to EPA: "That stinks"

Page 3 of 5  


You don't quite have the analogy right, do you? Let's say your leg aches a little bit, or maybe you just imagine that it does. And then the politicians start telling you that if you don't DO something RIGHT NOW, that leg is going to really start to hurt and when it does you are going to die! Well, everybody knows that aches and pains come from diet so we just need to reduce your "food footprint" and everything will work out fine. How to do that? No problem. Just tax the daylights out of foot so that your food costs are doubled and send the money (after administrative costs, natch) to the Third world. And you are saved!
The only problem is that you have no idea what is actually causing the pain. And next to no proof that food is doing it. But the scare is that if you delay until the proof actually exists, it will be too late for you and you will die! So you'd better start forking out cash right now! Of course unmentioned is the fact that you probably DO have some serious health issues that DO need attention and just perhaps your money would be better spent addressing real rather than imaginary problems.
Point is (as others here have pointed out) one could absolutely destroy civilization and return to the dark ages and it would hardly put a dent in the current CO2 levels. There are quite inexpensive ways to deal with warming if it dis suddenly become a problem, such as upper atmosphere seeding that you never hear anyone mention. Why do something cheap and effective when you can make a lot more money forcing everyone to pay for something totally futile.
Have a nice warm summer day!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Over 31000 scientist and 9000 phd's have signed a petition saying that globulloney warming is "unproven" . http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php
The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of settled science and an overwhelming consensus in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis. Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few skeptics remain skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency. It is evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,487 American scientists are not skeptics. These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Mr. Duncan and others: I sure hope that you are right. But I stick with the idea that CO2 (and methane) are greenhouse gases, and that their increase doesn't help us stay cool. I also think that the Russian forest fires don't put enough smoke and soot high enough into the startosphere to counteract any of the recent warming trends. That would require ore than a few Mount Pinotbo- type volcanic eruptions. I willhave a great day with my grandson's 4th birthday, and the great weather we will be having today in North Jersey.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/8/2010 5:46 AM, Han wrote:

4 years is a great age for little kids to be entertaining, they're old enough to understand most of what you say and young enough to believe everything you tell them. I had one 4 year old believing that I had eaten him up and he was in my stomach where I told him to be quiet. The same little critter was in whinny mode demanding an item of some sort one day when I said to him, "Now Tommy, what's the magic word, what do you say when you'd like someone to give you something?" He looked up at an angle and you could see the little wheels spinning behind his eyes when he suddenly shouted, "AKRABADABRA!" while throwing his hands in the air in his best magician fashion. One thing you can try on your grandson is to tell him you are going to unscrew his bellybutton so his behind falls off. I have twin girlfriends I met when they were 3 years old and I had them convinced their behinds would fall off if I got to their tummies and unscrewed their bellybuttons so every time they saw me, they covered their little tummies with their hands. Now that they are teenagers, the response is still there, all I have to do is make the twisting motion with my hand and the reaction is the same. Both at the same time will cover their tummies. 8-)
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course CO2, methane (and water vapor) ARE greenhouse gasses. But that doesn't quite do the scientific answers does it? It's not do they don't have an effect (they do) but rather HOW MUCH of an effect do they have? The fact that this is a political rather than a scientific question can be seen from the use of words like "deniers" and that the members of the IPCC are not climate scientists. It's interesting that water vapor BY FAR is the "greenhouse gas" with greatest effect, but how can you tax the ocean? Did you hear anybody suggesting that BP get taxed to death for dumping all that methane into the air? But CO2 as a combustion product is just made to order for taxation. And of course it would only take about four decent volcanoes to give us permanent winter and have us all WISHING "global warming" would come! It's happened before and when all the crops freeze in summer, it's not a pretty picture.
My view is that there are plenty of serious problems here right now that need attention without getting everyone scared over problems that "might" happen in the future.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which brings this quote to the surface: "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." Michael Crichton (1942 - 2008), Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003
--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Benj wrote:

In addition, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. It's increased so much that the entire human output of CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution can't account for the mass of CO2 added to the atmosphere.
What the environmentalists don't want to discuss is, where is the CO2 coming from? Much of it seems to be coming from active volcanos and other "natural" sources, but that's irrelevant, because natural sources don't justify social engineering.
    -Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Misifus wrote:

It's time to appease the gods of old by throwing virgins into the volcanos' maws.
Where can we find people so ugly they MUST be virgins?
Let me think...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

SCOTUS ???
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<snort> 2 new ones this year!--Wayne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Wrong, but almost right.
Some cherries are pushed way up in there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even ugly people have sex. Sometimes more than beautiful people.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Higgs Boson wrote:

That's only because they are either stoned or drunk.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/9/2010 6:54 AM, HeyBub wrote:

That's why I don't drink or use mind altering illegal drugs.
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Global warming is a fact, demonstrated by long-term climatic records from around the world.
The greenhouse effect from CO2 is not a brand-new idea someone sprung on us; I first read about it 60 years ago. And while fossil-fuel burning and deforestation may not account for ALL the rise in atmospheric CO2, they are causing a significant increase. That may not cause global warming, but it will certainly contribute to it.
CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Methane is a more potent one, but less of it is under human control, and the economic consequences of reducing its sources (e.g., stop raising beef and dairy cattle) would be severe in their own way. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas as well, and even if we could end its evaporation, where would the rains then come from?
Reducing CO2 by switching to other energy sources and replacing lost forests will cost serious money. But the economic consequences of not doing so are probably greater, even if our efforts merely slow rather than eliminate warming.
Much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, which become more acid as a result, which will affect the balance of sea life.
Global warming melts glaciers and ice caps, raising sea levels--maybe not enough to inundate many places permanently but enough to ensure at least some storm-driven flooding in coastal areas (which includes most of the world's major cities), and the loss of some beachfront property.
And then there are the direct effects: shifts in agriculture due to different growing seasons, different rainfall patterns, etc. A tropical Topeka might be nice, but what would the climate be like in San Antonio if that happened?
Why all this opposition to the idea that we should do something about carbon emissions now? Some seems to be disbelief that little old mankind could alter the climate (we've been altering it for millennia, only not this fast). Some seems to be the sheer inconvenience and cost of changing our ways. Some seems to be mistrust of authority, especially government. (Do you expect business to lead in reversing climate change? Would you switch your business to higher-cost, lower- carbon energy sources if that would allow your competitors to undercut your prices or reap bigger profits? Would your stockholders stand for it?)
Yeah, there are some scientists who don't believe. There always are, always have been, and always will be--and that's good, because the whole point of science is informed skepticism. But more of them -- especially those who specialize in climate -- do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree with everything Ivan said.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Everybody get the memo? The last ice age is over and there has been warming ever since. THAT is not the issue. The issue is the claim that catastrophic climate change is going to happen if the massive "cap and trade" scheme is not implemented immediately. THAT is where the politics and falsehoods lie.

Great! It's just too bad that science isn't decided by a popular vote. It's not even decided by a vote of scientists!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's a free country, Benj! At least, here it is. You can believe whatever you want to. FWIW, I believe the evidence I have seen and heard that we humans are increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere and that such an increase leads (has led) to warmer temperatures, globally.
YMMV! Stay cool.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Texas to EPA: "That stinks":

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the above is true.
So what? What's wrong with a warming earth?
The earth has gone through many periods of cooling/warming in the past few million years. That's what causes "ice ages" to emerge and recede. What difference does it make what causes it: be it volcanoes or human activity as a whole?
Neither one is controllable.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote Re Re: OT:

What difference does it make? it is really very simple. Warming would raise ocean levels. Then it takes a lot to keep cities from flooding. For instance ost of Florida is as flat as a pancake and little more than a few feet or so above mean high tide. Of course storm surges need to be protected against too. Some years ago a storm at the time of a "spring high tide" flooded portions of Manhattan. A strong storm at the 31 january 1953 spring high tide flooded portions of Holland and London, giving rise to the Dutch Delta Works and the London Thames storm barrier. It's amazing to see how large a fraction of the world's population lives in areas that would inundate when sea levels rise. Hardly anyone is preparing for this. Likely it won't happen while my teeth can still hurt me, but they are getting very old ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.