OT The real reason for "global warming" Ba ha ha

Page 2 of 3  
On 07/30/2012 05:02 AM, Han wrote:

It was a narrow ruling on the mandate as unconstitutional under the commerce clause but valid as a tax (which the authors explicitly denied). The validity of the whole law under the 10th wasn't part of the pleadings.

Earmarks are to satisfy a relatively small number of folks who give big campaign bucks. The "constituents" you mention get frightened when any talk of social program reforms are mentioned, even though our current tax receipts don't cover SS, Medicare and Mediacaid. Some of these and all other Federal spending are borrowed including Obaba-care.

--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The SCOTUS (Roberts) bent backwards to make the law constitutional. I believe that the generalities of the law are good, while some specifics couls probably be done better, but that's my "leftists" opinion, as well as Romney's on the Mass law that served as example. You are correct that the 10th amendment has been successfully outmaneuvered/evaded. While I agree that the US is a Republic of States, it's been some 150 years ago that the opponents lost in a damn bloody war. Get over it. We are better off as a single country rather than conflicting states. Ask the Europeans how that feels nowadays. Sorry if I have offended sensitive souls.

Earmarks I mentioned as an example of Congressional largesse. The whole budget is nowadays made up out of whole cloth. In spite of all the screaming about responsible spending etc. We need to stop pandering to the unions for their featherbedding (if ny), we need to stop spending on unnecessary bureaucracies (wherever they are), and we need to make everyone more responsible for their actions (with effective penalties, not slaps on the wrist and bailouts). And paying for what we do indeed want will require raising taxes. Can't be any other way.
--
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
Han wrote:

Why can't we go on the way we have been going? Either GW is beyond our capacity to influence it and we have to adjust to the result or we have to revert to a time of lesser energy use.
If the former, we build dikes around costal cities and take similar steps to mitigate the effects. If the latter, we regress to a time when life was painful, brutal, and short.
The WORST reaction is to act as if GW was caused by civilization but find out later that GW is natural and beyond our ability to do anything about it.

I'll play: Why is living frugally a Good Thing(tm)?
Consider the chap who harkens to your definition by buying a canoe instead of a yacht. Dozens of yacht builders don't get the work, ship's chandlers, able-bodied seamen, and others are likewise missing out on employment, and so on.
Or perhaps the family who opt for a teepee instead of a mansion; again, no home builders, suppliers of materials, no tax revenue, on-and-on.
Bottom line: If one is convinced that living off of nuts and berries is sufficient, what happens to innovation, improvements in the human condition, and the future of humanity?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How about a middle way? We WILL need to build defenses like the Dutch around some of our habitats. But we can also try to minimize the CO2 (etc, etc) we produce.

Didn't know you were a Keynesian spendthrift <grin>! Spend and inflate, or spend and tax? which will it be? While I do think that just firing everyone who could possibly be missed might also not be a good thing, going the Spanish route of (very temporary) "prosperity" by borrowing and spending on all kinds of luxuries is definitely a recipe for disaster. That is playing out in Europe and Florida.
One can be frugal without being miserly, methinks. We are being frugal by only having 1 car, a 2005 Grand (well ...) Caravan, but we went on an Alaska vacation earlier this year ...
--
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 7/30/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:

No need to be frugal if you have always lived with in your means and planed for times like these.
My wife and I lived in our first starter home for 30 years. We refinanced it 6 years in and paid an additional $300 per month for 6 years. The house was paid for in 1995 and as a result we have been debt free ever since.
We always looked around us and wondered why we were still in this same starter house 25+ years after moving in and saw people driving very expensive cars and buying huge homes.
Well back in 2008 the answer came and as a result we were able to finally afford/pay cash for a bigger new home.
We are still debt free.
It is a great feeling owing no one, but that only comes from only buying what we can truly afford. I will add that we will finance short term if the interest rate is "Zero" and if we can pay cash to begin with. We have been very lucky to have had the wisdom and patience to wait until we have truly earned what we choose to buy, this methodology has been rewarding.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am keeping the HELOC with $75K outstanding and 2.24% interest, for the moment. I'm ready to pay it off when I decide to. That and the revolving charge cards that get paid off every month is what I owe. It is indeed a good feeling to not be in hock. Now I have to get the kids in that same situation/frame of mind. Of course, we have been very lucky with well- paying employment, but we did spend according to income, while saving up for this retirement thing ...
--
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 7/30/2012 12:47 PM, Han wrote:

If you pay it off today you will be earning 2.24% more on that money.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am still getting 3.9% on my TIAA money ...
--
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

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

Ha!!!
--
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
wrote:

carry debt. Paid my house off in 10 years, though it's not fancy I have acreage to grow food, But I've watched neighbors with $1800 plus a months payment just consumed with survival.
Mike M
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:26:33 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

<http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming - real-142616605.html>
I'm sure you won't believe him either :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/30/2012 11:21 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

Too bad you didn't bother to read the thread, or Muller's study. Admittedly incomplete, it was thoroughly discussed a few posts back. :)
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:21:27 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard

Geeze, Larry, we (Wreck) just had this discussion. Pay attention.
-- When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary. -- Thomas Paine
(comparing Paine to the current CONgress <deep sigh>)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:44:23 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

My bad - I clicked on the wrong reference. I'll try harder :-). Here's the right reference:
<http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/jul/30/climate-change-skeptic - reverses-course/>
The article is from today's newspaper. Here's the difference:
"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:30:41 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard

OK, I repeat:
Geeze, Larry, we (Wreck) just had this discussion. Pay attention. <deep sigh> (Reread Swingy's earlier swat, too.)
So, Muller's report is due to be released today. Let's wait until some folks (both Believers and Deniers) have a chance to take a closer look and do peer reviews/critiques of it before we go anywhere with it, eh?
The missing datasets (solar and oceanic?) bother me a whole lot. And I'd like to see his temperature station list to see if he is accepting the limited set now available which automatically skews the data higher. BTW, this report is being released with an open request for peer review. It's not a done deed until everyone has checked his work, Mr. True Believer. I'm also iffy about the use of CO2 in ice samples since there is still a good possibility that it follows warmth rather than leading it.
Here's the text of Muller's NYT article, since, apparently, nobody but Swingy and I have read it: --snip-- July 28, 2012 The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic By RICHARD A. MULLER
Berkeley, Calif.
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. Im now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earths land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.
Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.
The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earths surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Nio and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the flattening of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.
Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; weve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else weve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts dont prove causality and they shouldnt end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesnt change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.
Its a scientists duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. Ive analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasnt changed.
Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears arent dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers arent going to melt by 2035. And its possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Optimum, an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to global warming is weaker than tenuous.
The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.
What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.
Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.
Richard A. Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, is the author, most recently, of Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines.
( http://tinyurl.com/blvkg68 copyright New York Times newspaper)
--snip--
Two paragraphs are key, too. They begin with "It's a scientist's duty" and "Hurricane Katrina". They show that his skepticism is still with him for most things. Why don't you Libs ever read or research _any_ of the articles you tout, anyway? Crikey!
-- When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary. -- Thomas Paine
(comparing Paine to the current CONgress <deep sigh>)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

I had a good friend who introduced me to the concept of "Quality Control Thinking," which consisted of asking the appropriate, simple, question. In this case, the question is:
"So what?"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@NOSPAMgmail.com says...

If you push the global warming people for what to do about it, most say "well start building solar".
If you actually check their numbers you find that we have to clean up 200 gigawatts worth of production every year for the next half century.
If they're right this isn't something we can be half-assed about. We have one technology that produces no carbon emissions, and that is fully developed and ready for production. But the greenies like it even less than they like global warming, and so nothing has been done.
McCain listened to the global warming people and in his campaign he said what he was going to do about it and his numbers were spot on. We saw where that got him.
Personally I don't give a crap anymore. It's clear that nobody is going to do anything about it except posture and use it as an excuse for more taxes. So either it's going to happen or it's not and either it's the end of the world or it's not, and putting energy into whining about it is a waste of effort.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Yep. The amount of solar radiation hitting the earth is about 3KW/sq meter. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds.
Adjusting for latitude, clouds, pollution, twelve hours of darkness, and 50% efficiency, California would need a solar collection farm the size of the Los Angeles basin (1200 sq miles) for its daily needs of about 50GW. Imagine the cost to build and maintain something 1200 square miles in extent!
The only way to improve on the above is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun. Absent that, folks have to come to grips with the idea that we can't run this country off of sunbeams.
It's not all bad, though. The citizens of Los Angeles would be living in the shade.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

I fully agree. But should that absolve us of the responsibility to do what we reasonably can do??
--
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.