Agreed, pollution is a problem. Not all that is labeled as "pollution" is a
problem. The latest craze is the carbon pollution by very far lengths taken
out of context amd made to sound bad. IIRC we contribute between 1-2% of
all of this carbon pollution. The earth naturally emits the other 98%. The
large volcano that recently erupted emitted more pollution in a single day
than all of the automobiles combined.
Before the carbon pollution there was the ozone pollution. Some scientists
now speculate that because of the restriction of some pollution the sun's
rays now penetrate more of the atmosphere and causing the oceans to heat up
more in turn that is responsible for the more frequent and stronger
hurricanes. I personally think that the weather bureau has spent a fortune
on the latest radar and needs to catch every passing cloud to consider it
for tropical storm naming nomination. The biggest problems with the storms
are that our politicians are squandering money that should go toward
I think we should control the obvious pollution but lets not make up
pollution problems for political gain. The first step to controlling carbon
pollution would be to tape every politicians mouth shut, that would do as
much if not more good as buying carbon credits or capturing the carbon and
burying it at the bottom of the ocean.
While it is easy to play Monday morning quarter back and I'll admit that I
am not real happy with the current politicians that are in charge, I pray
that our next president does not have to face the obstacles that Bush had to
address during the first year of his presidency. I imagine that any
president would probably have to make a change in his agenda had he had the
I do agree with the wish of the next president being better than the present
one and for that matter I wish that every succeeding president is better
than the one before.
My #1 wish for environmental improvement is the relaxation of the EPA
rules that require a facility upgrade everything if they upgrade
Installing $2million smokestack scrubbers that can eliminate 97% of
the output particulate pollution shouldn't require a $100million
overhaul of the entire power plant. I understand the intent, but
really, "All or nothing" is kind of stupid in this application.
No president is powerful enough to do everything that has gone on in
the past 8 years. It was a team effort! :-)
I think the anthropogenic contribution is closer to 3 to 5%.
Some sources include biomass burning while others do not.
Regardless, the observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide
makes it clear that nature is not quite sequestering all of the
carbon dioxide that is emitted from all sources combined,
and the rate of rise indicates that the excess over and above
what is being sequestered is about half of what humanity
produces from fossil fuels and cement production. E.g. if
anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide magically ceased,
the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would
begin to decline about as steeply as it has risen in the past
Two big difference between the particulates emitted
by volcanos and those emitted by cars are:
!) The particulates emitted by cars are emitted close
to the ground where they have very little effect on global
temperature, and they rapidly settle out of the atmosphere
whereas volcanos blast theirs up high into the atmosphere
where they can have a significant effect on albedo and
it can take years for them to settle out.
2) The particulates emitted by cars are generally concentrated
in the same places where lots of people breathe (e.g. cities)
whereas (hopefully) volcanos emit theirs in more remote
Volcanic emissions can significantly contribute to global
dimming, and therefor global cooling. Particulate emissions
from cars are a local health issue.
Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide average to
more than one hundred times more than volcanic:
And the lunacy dance begins. In the absence of facts to support your
earth worship, you'll redefine terms. Now it won't be "warming", it
will be something else you use to terrify the illiterate masses.
You pantheists have a problem, several actually. First of all, the
data does not all point in one direction. Secondly, it is barely
correlative, let alone causal. Thirdly, the actual recent local temp
averages have been among the lowest in recent decades. Fourthly, and
most damning of all, you (and no one else) can establish that we live
in the best of all possible climates, and thus ought to seek to keep
it from changing. It is the height of presumptive arrogance to declare
that we're about to go into a climate abyss when NO ONE can actually
predict what the consequences would be, how bad, how fast, and so
forth. (Never mind that you can't even establish that humans could
actually do anything useful to thwart climate that has undergone
continuous change for 4B+ years.)
That doesn't stop people in your religion (because GW orthodoxy is a
religion requiring more faith than a literal 6-day Creationist
exhibits) from worshiping your idols as officiated by your high
priests like Peace Prize Boy.
'Think I'll fire up the SUV and go 12mpg for a while just to clear my
mind. This trip's for you...
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
Hmm, Don't believe Rev Hagee is running for office, but then I could be
I've read enough to be able to be able to know BS when I see it. OTOH, if
you are willing to believe that people can measure the global average
temperature to 1/10's of a degree precision from centuries before the
invention of the thermometer by using tree ring data or ice core samples,
by all means jump on board. Algore will be happy to have you freezing
during the winter, sweating during the summer, and straining to see by the
light of CFL's while he continues to jet around in his G5.
As an engineer who has spent a significant amount of my career in modeling
and simulation of real-world test events, I am intimately familiar with the
difficulty of building models that predict accurately the results of those
test events. ... and that is when *I* have control of a large number of
the test parameters. Yet somehow I am to believe that people using models
with inputs from centuries-old tree ring data and other inputs from a
system many orders of magnitude more complex than any system ever built by
humans are going to be able to predict a degree or less temperature rise
over the next 50 years accurately when they can't even get the weather for
next week right? (Yeah, Fred, I know the difference between weather and
climate, they can't even predict the trends for a season very accurately).
Well, given that the planet hasn't warmed since 1998, and they are now
predicting a cooling trend over the next 12 years as a result of "natural
variations in climate", yeah, I'd say warming is a bit of a misnomer. Nice
thing about their theory though, no matter what happens, it's all a result
of global climate change. Temps go up: man-made global warming. Temps go
down: wild swings due to man-made climate change. I love the concept, no
matter what happens, you are right, you get paid for it, and you get to
work to dismantle the free-market society from which we all benefit.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
As you may recall, I don't think that studies
of the geological record are useful for predicting
the future because present circumstances
are dissimilar to those in the geological past.
Maybe they could if they were doing a massive
least squares to estimate the parameters of their
models, but I am doubtful that the data permit
separate resolution of all, or even most, of the
forcing functions. I've never read an explanation
of how any climatologist constructs any models.
My impression is that they all know how they
do it and it never occurs to them to tell anybody
There are several reasons why I don't have a lot of
confidence in the temperature data.
Hmm, so you make a point of telling me that you know the difference
between weather and climate, and then go ahead and write as
if poor weather forecasting were an indicator of the accuracy of
long term climate predictions...
According to whom? Somebody else was making that claim
in another ng, but when I asked him to point me to the data
he pointed me to a website with at least scores of pages,
without specifying what he was looking at. I didn't see anything
that looked to me to support what he was saying, but then
again he hasn't been able to explain how changes in solar
irradiance cause a change in the Earth's temperature either.
Who are they?
We are near a sunspot minimum now, so whoever they
are, they must think that something else will more than
offset the expected rise in solar irradiance over the
next five years or so.
You really think that a bunch of people who think nothing of blowing
themselves to Hell for the glory of Allah will hesitate to nuke major
cities for the same purpose?
The trouble with nukes is that it's a lot easier to keep someone from
getting them than to take them away afterwards if it turns out that
the people having them are using them irresponsibly.
Or are you cool with some loon killing tens of millions of people for
the glory of Allah?
So you're saying that it's cheaper to bomb half the middle east every
day for all eternity than it is to occupy and Americanize the place?
There was a time I had some respect for your rhetoric. Turns out you
are nothing but yet another arrogant cowboy.
You don't think that loose cowboys with nukes, threatening the
planet's destruction is none of MY business???
Given the opportunity, I'd have to take you out.
You and your ilk are a danger to human life. Period...seminary boy!
And down you will go. Snug at the end of your own rope.
On Tue, 13 May 2008 16:49:44 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Before you dismiss Jeremiah Wright's remarks as "evil racist screeds", consider
that his comments about "God damn America" are not much different from the
prophet Isaiah when he decried the sins of ancient Israel. Isaiah was not
received well by the people of his time either. Jeremiah Wright's remarks are
to be seen in contrast to the common political invocation, "God bless America".
What seems like a prayer ("Please, God, send your blessings upon our nation.")
is actually used as an arrogant statement ("God does bless our nation. God
approves of our nation and its actions. God is on my side."). Which is worse -
a prophetic warning about how God is displeased with us and our sins, or a
presumptuous statement that God is on my side?
As for the remarks being racist, they are no more racist than those who produced
the TV mini-series "Roots". Both point out grievous injustices commited by one
group of people against another. Yet the produces of Roots received awards for
What Obama does have to be proud of is his years of community organizing in
Chicago where he fought for the disempowered. The rich and powerful don't
really need anyone to fight for them.
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.