Climate change is scientifically correct. Global warming is the cause, climate change is the result. As somebody else pointed out, while on average the temps increase it is not everywhere. It doesnt get much warmer at the equator, but at the poles the increase in temp is amplified when the cool reflecting snow gives way to heat absorbing dark bodies of water. And global warming doesnt sound that bad, but the intensity of storms, their duration, bigger and longer and more intense heat waves, snowstorms, droughts, more intense hurricanes, not necessarily more of them. Ingrid
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:40:48 -0400, "Dan L." wrote: The >article never uses the phrase "Global Warming", it uses the phase
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Somewhere between zone 5 and 6 tucked along the shore of Lake Michigan on the council grounds of the Fox, Mascouten, Potawatomi, and Winnebago
If my understanding of global warming is correct and I am not sure. The poles are regulating the earths oceans and earths temperature. The poler ice is shrinking. When the polar ice goes away so does the earths temperature regulation. Then it is too late to save life on this planet.
Is it not best to reduce carbon emissions now or wait and see who is correct.
Yes, but apparently the occasion of "global warming" will be a new "opportunity" to sell global cooling to the terrified masses, e.g. painting roofs and roads white, putting SO2 in the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, or seeding clouds to make them bigger. This will, of course, cost MONEY. All this while mathane being released by the thawing tundra makes things worse and worse. Sort of a game of "chicken" or Russian roulette on a planetary scale. Then, of course, there is the methane hydrate (Methane clathrates) locked into the oceans floors by high pressure and cold water. Cold water? Uh-oh. Thing is, that if we go to the equivalent of 1000 ppm CO2 (we are now at
375 ppm) the oceans will start belching H2S and it will be time to play "Mass Extinction 6".
Of the two economic systems Capitalism and Socialism, Socialism will be the survivor. What if in the future, ten percent of the worlds population can provide for 100 percent of all goods and services through free trade and automation, What kind of economic system will one have where 90 percent of the population has no job? The good times are over with.
The world is becoming more productive each and every year. Capitalism is a dying economic system. I am not saying the future will be a good future. Rationing on all levels will occur. Distribution of wealth is the only answer. Like it or not.
A tad OFF TOPIC, but from where I stand, there are no capitalist, but there may be Socialism in Bolivia.
What we've had is kleptocratic authority pretending to be capitalists in one place, and socialists (communists) in another. Americans, Russians, Chinese, everybody has consulted with Milton Friedman on how to put the best face on greed, and maintaining the elite class. All the power brokers want neo-liberalism, because you don't have to think for it to operate. The markets correct themselves. Even Schwarzenegger can understand the beauty of no need to regulate, the markets correct themselves. Which we found out, isn't true.
In the "Commodities Futures Modernization Act", which in the 11th hour was inserted into an omnibus spending bill by then Senator Phil Gramm in
2000, the trading of mortagage credit default swaps was suddenly legal again. They were not legal since 1934 since the passing of the Glass-Steagal Act.
After Gramm's little sleight of hand, the investment banks could suddenly sell "insurance" against a mortgage default. That's not a problem, but they were allowed to do so WITHOUT COLLATERAL. They didn't have to show that they had assets in reserve to back up the mortage defaults in the event that they did fail.
It was almost like a license to print money. The higher ups in those companies made huge bonuses by selling the credit default swaps in a positive housing market because none of the loans were defaulting. It was pure profit. The problem came when the housing market declined, the policies came due and there were no assets to back up the policies. The banks were so big that the financial system would grind to a halt if they failed, so the government was forced to step in and bail them out. In the meantime, the people who sold those deriviatives got to keep their bonuses.
The system is incentivized in such a way that it's bound to happen again if it's not regulated.
When the markets aren't regulated, it's the invisible hand of the elite that drives shares up, or down.
Dust off that old Michael Douglas DVD "Wallstreet", and see again, how the game is played.
formatting link
now there is no money to bail out the victims, i.e. the taxpayers. Productivity has gone up since 1987, income hasn't for the worker. Bush gave the rich tax breaks. There are more billionaires than ever before. And now they cut support to the disabled, old, and the sick. Libraries are cutting back. The Post Office wants to cut back. The parks of Detroit are closed. There are potholes in the street.
And it costs Toronto $2 billion to have the rich come and plan for a week? Two billion dollars of taxpayer dollars? Who calls the shots?
We all know where the money went. But our congesspeople won't let us tax the one class that has benefitted from the last quarter century neo-liberal greed.
I just hope we can make as much noise as the Greeks are doing.
Is that a pink tie you are wearing ? I had one 50 years ago and I'd love to find it again. Pinko!
Dan L and " I feel fine" sort of misses the irony issue. 22 years ago some folks thought slash and burn ( Carbon freeing) was not good and gave us a heads up. Warnings can only go so far as most seem to need to feel the heat before they withdraw the hand. Trouble is like the frog in cold water he will not jump out with the boil. Most now look at long term as next week, some Dec 25 but longer that is not their problem. Gross assumption. Gardeners however have too look at the longer picture and sometimes they may look much further. Why? I don't know but love of life may be in the top 5 modus operants.
There are many things that affect temperature. The permanently frozen areas have a contribution in that they reflect more sunlight back to space than non-frozen. If they melt that energy will be absorbed so adding to warming effect.
The other issue is that the ice sheets over land, mainly Antarctica and Greenland, hold much water above sea level so if they melt sea level will rise.
The precautionary principle says that we should do so. The other related issue is that fossil fuels are strictly limited, they will run out one day for sure. In the case of oil that day isn't far off. Why not convert to renewable energy now before there is a catastrophe? The sooner we do it the less it will cost.
Don't be so dismissive. There are far too many people who believe the global pinko conspiracy is the explanation for the scientific consensus and there are vested interests pushing it as much as possible. It doesn't have to make sense it just has to agree with prejudice and the imagined view of the world. And there is plenty of that.
I am not sure what the replacement system will be but laissez faire capitalism isn't going to be the winner. The simple reason is that nobody knows how to make it run without constant growth. The resources of the world are limited and so growth WILL come to an end. The question is, will we be vaguely in control and managing the situation or will it be a crash landing?
Sheesh, you are a Pollyanna, David. Give up cheap fuel when all it costs is the environment, and some slap on the wrist safety-fines, no matter how many die? At today's production, we can milk this baby for another
200 years. 200 years of profits. Don't forget who pays for them slick political campaigns, and get caught hugging a tree, or "THEY" may find someone else to play the politician. Dance with them what brought you, is the common wisdom. Dance!
I am not sure that the term "fossil fuel" is correct anymore. It was once thought that oil came from fossils and limited. The earth itself, deep underground makes the oil from a chemical process. Oil may be unlimited, one just has to go deep, very deep. That is why they now call it "Carbon Fuels" not "Fossil Fuels". However, oil in every stage of production is toxic. It is best to get away from carbon fuels.
The reason, by my understanding, oil companies pay little to no taxes from off shore drilling and on public land. Almost all other land is accounted for, therefore must pay the land owner a percentage of the oil proceeds. That is why they do not want to drill on private land.
For twenty percent they can drill on my land. I will be happily rich and move to less toxic area :)
Not if it is last years CO2, but it is irresponsible if it is last millennium's, or later, fuel. There is a CO2 cycle. If we burn last years carbon, we are good. If we burn last millennium's carbon, or carbon from a million years ago , it is bad. There is a difference between last years bio-mass, and carbon from 100 million years ago.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.