First off, before you go accusing anyone of being on a "bandwagon" perhaps you should go look in the mirror. As you jump on every right wing bandwagon that comes along, the latest a being global warming skeptic.These graphs still appear to show a definite warming trend.Old science. Outdated science. Incorrect science. How do you continue to justify holding positions when the information upon which you base them is so often wrong? I can tell you how, you believe what you are told and, in fact, spend very little, if any, time at all on your own corroborating and verifying what you have been told. It is you, my fine bucko, who has jumped on a bandwagon and is just along for the ride because your friends have invited you.
The fact is that according to a new study by nasa, the figures provided to you by Stephen McIntyre which claim that 1998 is the warmest year on record are wrong. An error was found in the dataset and when corrected, it was discovered that 1934 was the warmest year on record and 4 of the warmest 10 years date back to the 1930's and only 3 from the past 10 years. Quite embarrasing for alarmists, if you ask me, since you are quick to point out that 80% of the manmade CO2 emissions date from after 1940.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warmingGlobal warming -- a gradual increase in planet-wide temperatures -- is now well documented and accepted by scientists as fact. A panel convened by the U.S National Research Council, the nation's premier science policy body, in June 2006 voiced a "high level of confidence" that Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, and possibly even the last 2,000 years. Studies indicate that the average global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.5-1.0°F (0.3-0.6°C) over the last century. This is the largest increase in surface temperature in the last 1,000 years and scientists are predicting an even greater increase over this century. This warming is largely attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) in the Earth's upper atmosphere caused by human burning of fossil fuels, industrial, farming, and deforestation activities.
I am one who says global warming is real. I am not one who will advocate for getting off gasoline/oil in the next 5-10 years. It needs to happen over a 25-50 year period.
The infastructure and economy are not at all prepared for that kind of upheaval. If that were to happen, I would be a serious vocal proponent of Alaska leaving the US. It would destroy the economy of this state. Independence or Canada would be the only real solutions for Alaska without an option to export our oil as is not allowed right now.
If the US wants to end petroleum use, Alaska and other oil producing states will suffer greatly.
Top Gun, I dont disagree. I will admit, I am certainly one who has the NIMBY factor here. I say open up ANWR and loosen restrictions on the Alaska north slope oil fields. Those are about 1000 miles from me.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration lifted a moratorium(sp) on drilling for oil in Bristol Bay. I am a resident of Bristol Bay. BB is the wealthiest and most productive fishery in the world. Despite oil being down there, the idea of offshore drilling and the potential impact on the various fisheries will never be acceptable in my eyes.
Irregardless, there is enough oil and gas in the north american arctic between Canadian and Alaska where it would make a huge difference on our reliance of middle eastern oil. Bush is utterly blind to the achilles heel this is for the US. If I were President I by the end of my term we wouldnt buy a barrel of oil from the Saudis.
In the meantime, with oil at now over $90 a barrel, Alaska is raking in money.
First off, before you go accusing anyone of being on a "bandwagon" perhaps you should go look in the mirror. As you jump on every right wing bandwagon that comes along, the latest a being global warming skeptic.These graphs still appear to show a definite warming trend.
You champion Stephen Mcintyre, who could accurately be referred to as a big oil flunkie. A former mining executive, associated with the George C. Marshall Institute, which is heavily financed by Exxon Mobile.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36
My only point is to show that the global warming skeptic movement is heavily funded by corporations that have a vested interested in the subject. Here's just some of Exxon Mobil's activities.
From a security standpoint if we could get to somewhere approaching close to self reliant as far as oil & gasoline goes it would obviously be a good thing. It's easy to see how relying on foreign oil is a slippery slope.
1) Keep pushing gas powered automobiles mileage ratings up.
3) Increase the amount of vehicles that run on the higher ethanol/to gas mixtures.
. Funny thing is, bunches of them told Chavez to take the diesel and screw himself.
The only way to achieve those mileage increases is to make cars lighter and as a result, thousands upon thousands die. Tell me, exactly how many human lives are you prepared to sacrifice at the altar of increased mileage?
Who finances who and what is entirely irrelavent.