Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

[top gun]

Love those carbon emissions. Hope to create more. Smog is a good thing. Now let's go piss in the pool.

 

[Popeye]

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 Outdated science.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.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years​

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://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/08/who-heck-is-steve-mcintyre-portait-of.html​

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36

 

[Popeye]

Some more on global warming. When you hear the, "man has nothing to do with it" argument, remember it's big oil doing the talking.

Global 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.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

[Bunz]

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.

 

[Popeye]

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.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html​

 

[top gun]

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.

Bunz I understand what you're saying completely and I don't disagree.

The goal should be is to incrementally ween ourselves. Start to switch away portions of our energy needs off of oil & gasoline.

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.

To work toward that there are things we can do...

1) Keep pushing gas powered automobiles mileage ratings up.

2) Keep researching & investing in electric/hybrid/and bio-diesel technology.

3) Increase the amount of vehicles that run on the higher ethanol/to gas mixtures.

3) There are a lot of seemingly small things that we could do that in the big picture really add up. For instance... there is no reason why any car, boat or truck (any engine for that matter) should have dinosaur oil in it for lubrication. If every engine came with and could only be replaced with synthetic oil not only would it be better for the engines... but think how much crude that frees up for domestic gasoline production.

I see gasoline being used for a long time to come. But think if we could get the gasoline engines we have now running on a bigger cut of ethanol and getting say 10 to 20 miles more per gallon. Then on top of that say if only 60% - 70% of all the engines on the road were even running solely on an ethanol/gas mix or traditional diesel and the rest were super hybrids that used almost no gas or even all electric cars for in town commuting. School buses and metro buses could relatively easily be converted or phased out in favor of new ones running on bio-diesel.

Even the longest journey begins with the first step. We just need to start being serious about going for a walk!

 

[Bunz]

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.

 

[top gun]

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.

It's not all that often that Alaska gets a big windfall. I'm glad for the economic boost part for our people in Alaska. No doubt they deserve it... it's cold up there...

The $90 a barrel thing has a toll on the rest of the country though. Not expecting anything major to change for the better until Bush is out of office.

 

[Bunz]

Interesting to note that while Alaska makes money. I pay $5 a gallon at the pump. Economic conditions in some places are very difficult. Lack of infastructure is severely lacking where I live.
Hugo Chavez via Citgo donated quite a bit of home heating oil to Alaskans in native communities. Funny thing is, bunches of them told Chavez to take the diesel and screw himself.

 

[palerider]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years​

And once again, you demonstrate that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. I was an anthropogenic climate change skeptic way back when you and your crowd were assuring us that a new ice age was coming. And the graphs that I have provided also show a warming trend coming. Your point is?

The fact is that we are still coming out of an ice age. An overall warming trend is exactly what anyone who doesn't have his head stuck up his ass would expect.

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://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/08/who-heck-is-steve-mcintyre-portait-of.html​

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36

Either you can dispute the science or you can't. Clearly, you can't so you immediately switch over to ad hominem attacks on the man.

The information is either correct or it isn't. Can you effectively rebutt it?

 

[palerider]

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.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html​

As opposed to the anthropogenic global warming movement which is funded entirely by saints with pure hearts and no agenda at all? (sarcasm dripping from each and every word)

Who finances who and what is entirely irrelavent. Either the science is accurate or it is not. The AGW crowd takes a major league thumping on the science every time so you are left with nothing but name calling and attempting to divert from the conversation on the science to personalities.

 

[palerider]

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.

ANWR

1) Keep pushing gas powered automobiles mileage ratings up.

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?

3) Increase the amount of vehicles that run on the higher ethanol/to gas mixtures.

Ethanol, being an inferior fuel requires roughly twice the amount of gasoline per galon. How much forest are you willing to see plowed under in order to clear enough land to grow enough crop to make ethanol anything more than a minor drop in the bucket?

And you didn't mention hybrids, which, by the way cause more environmental diamage per vehicle than even the largest of the gas guzzling monsters?

 

[palerider]

. Funny thing is, bunches of them told Chavez to take the diesel and screw himself.

Good for them.

 

[Coyote]

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?

Actually - I wonder about that.

What do automobile fatality statistics look like in countries where the majority of cars are lighter and smaller and fuel efficiency is stressed?

Here's an interesting table: http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2003.htm

 

[Popeye]

Who finances who and what is entirely irrelavent.

To say funding is "totally irrelevant", is ridiculous. Why would Exxon Mobil fund anti global warming think tanks, if they don't expect information gathered to be weighted in their favor? I'm sure their motives must be entirely pure. Are you telling me, you completely trust the information that comes from an oil company funded organization? There is, without a doubt, a definite warming trend, and the clear majority of climate scientists and organizations agree that man has contributed significantly. Next, you'll be telling me, that according to a study financed by Phillip Morris, smoking doesn't cause cancer.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming