Global warming hoax

[The Watcher]

I believe communism requires also the enlightenment of one man just as much as of a whole society, so I'll try to shed some light on this global warming thing.

The following thoughts are a mix of my thoughts and scientific facts, don't take everything bloody seriously, but also give them serious consideration. If you are unsure, look it up somewhere.


Is global warming, real or made up?

Global warming is real.
However, it is not caused by man.
Global warming is a natural procession, it was existent before man, and probably will be present after man.

Sadly, as my post count is below 25, therefore I am unable to provide any diagrams.

Global warming is mainly caused by vapor and volcanic smoke.
Human CO2 emissions are only 1% of all that causes global warming.
There have been numerous periods of global warming, and global cooling - this is scientifically proven.
The sea level has been rising and decreasing for millions of years, species have always been dying out whilst new ones were born,
and man can not destroy or effectively control this global process.


The accumulating vapor and volcanic smoke and other gases only can reach so high levels, that they actually transform the face of the planet.


Global warming is nothing to fear.
The sea level rising is greatly exaggerated, the worst that could happen, is that plenty of houses right next to shores become uninhabitable / unsafe, and places below the sea level (0) might be also in minor danger, but small water can easily be stopped by man (Netherlands for example is excellent at this, lol).


Climate changes, seasons will too, but nothing unimaginable or deadly will happen globally (I can not say there will be more or there will be less tornadoes, hail- and thunderstorms, etc. Weather is so beautiful and unpredictable!). Our species will easily adapt.

Global warming is unstoppable. Why even try?
I don't know.

However, it might prove useful.
I think only the USA is threatened by this media panic, where Al Gore makes a retard of himself day by day, and even I can suspect some sort of corruption around science budget.
On the other hand, it adds a kind of boost to science, and environmental protection.
Although it has nothing ( or little ) to do with global warming, immense CO2 emissions are bad, and reducing it only helps the planet, and advancing industry.
There are other environmental problems on the planet, which are sadly unspoken of (for example: the ozone layer is still not in any perfect shape, destroying rainforests is horrible), but they all can benefit from this global warming hoax.

The conclusion: you are not responsible, you can't stop it. But if you don't watch out, you can make this planet worse.

If you ask me, keep a cool head and watch what happens.
And protect your environment! The children of your children do not wish to live their lives in a pit full of toxic waste and death.

NOTE: This post was written with the lack of perfection and entirety, and also in early morning.
If I missed anything, do say so, and I will correct it.
If you have any questions, ask away.

Challenge or support me, I'll probably think you are dumb if do the former, but it doesn't matter, I'm nor willing nor able to stop global warming, or this media panic, and you can't prevent it either.

[Rood]

Sorry but this is random bullshit..
It's a fact that there already is natural global warming
but that isn't anything in comparision with the real problem of global warming,
you talk like you are a business men, also al the great company's try to make you believe it isn't that bad..

[Havet]

Sorry but this is random bullshit..
It's a fact that there already is natural global warming
but that isn't anything in comparision with the real problem of global warming,
you talk like you are a business men, also al the great company's try to make you believe it isn't that bad..

actually some companies try to make it believe IT IS THAT BAD

Gore's Carbon offsets paid to firms he owns (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528)

Gore Invests in Carbon Credit Company (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/06/04/gore-invests-carbon-credit-company-will-media-care)


Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. “Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isn’t a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets,” said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.

GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.

CCX owes its existence in part to the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago-based liberal foundation that provided $347,000 in grant support in 2000 for a preliminary study to test the viability of a market in carbon credits. On the CCX board of directors is the ubiquitous Maurice Strong, a Canadian industrialist and diplomat who, since the 1970s, has helped create an international policy agenda for the environmentalist movement. Strong has described himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” His former job titles include “senior advisor” to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “senior advisor” to World Bank President James Wolfensohn and board member of the United Nations Foundation, a creation of Ted Turner. The 78-year-old Strong is very close to Gore.

CCX has about 80 members that are self-confessed emitters of greenhouse gases. They have voluntarily committed themselves to reduce their emissions by the year 2010 to a level 6% below their emissions in 2000. CCX members include Ford Motor Company, Amtrak, DuPont, Dow Corning, American Electric Power, International Paper, Motorola, Waste Management and a smattering of other companies, along with the states of Illinois and New Mexico, seven cities and a number of universities. Presumably the members “purchase” carbon offsets on the CCX trading exchange. This means they make contributions to or investments in groups or firms that provide forms of “alternative,” “renewable” and “clean” energy.

CCX also has “participant members” that develop the carbon-offset projects. They have names like Carbon Farmers and Eco-Nomics Incorporated. Still, other participant member groups facilitate, finance and market carbon-offset projects to “sequester, destroy or displace” greenhouse gases. CCX aspires to be the New York Stock Exchange of carbon-emissions trading.

Along with Gore, the co-founder of GIM is Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. Last September, Goldman Sachs bought 10% of CCX shares for $23 million. CCX owns half the ECX, so Goldman Sachs has a stake there as well.

GIM’s “founding partners” are studded with officials from Goldman Sachs. They include David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM); Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations. Another founding partner is Peter Knight, who is the designated president of GIM. He was Sen. Al Gore’s chief of staff from 1977-1989 and the campaign manager of the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election campaign.

Like CCX, the ECX has about 80 member companies, including Barclays, BP, Calyon, Endesa, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Shell, and ECX has contracted with the European Union to further develop a futures market in carbon trading. What’s in it for the companies? They will benefit either by investing in carbon credits or by receiving subsidies for doing so.

From:

The Money and Connections behind Al Gore's Crusade (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Global warming is nothing to fear.
The sea level rising is greatly exaggerated, the worst that could happen, is that plenty of houses right next to shores become uninhabitable / unsafe, and places below the sea level (0) might be also in minor danger, but small water can easily be stopped by man (Netherlands for example is excellent at this, lol).

Climate changes, seasons will too, but nothing unimaginable or deadly will happen globally (I can not say there will be more or there will be less tornadoes, hail- and thunderstorms, etc. Weather is so beautiful and unpredictable!). Our species will easily adapt.

Even if this global warming is just the result of the normal shifts in the conditions of the planet (although I think the human impact is a real factor), it is plain to see that capitalism in incapable of handling the many problems that may be caused by the environmental shift. Hell, capitalism can't even deal with a hot or cold day in Chicago that causes dozens of poor people to die because of inadequate housing, neglect for the elderly, lack of health care and so on.

Even if environmnetal shifts are not impacted by humans, the poor will suffer most due to these shifts under capitalism. Humans may be able to adapt, but history shows that capitalism will likely just turn it's back and move on (think the dust-bowl in the US) unless forced to do something.


The conclusion: you are not responsible, you can't stop it. But if you don't watch out, you can make this planet worse.History also shows that humans can have a huge impact on the planet - in fact, the ability to change our environment is what separates us from most other animals (ooh, beavers, dam creeks - big freekin deal beaver!).

The problem right now is that humans creative and productive energies are channeled into creating profit under capitalism. If our resources and production was taken care of democratically, I have no doubt that we would have to ability to radically change our environment for the better.

[Vanguard1917]

I agree with Gravedigger that capitalism stands in the way of us properly changing our environment to suit human needs. But we have to be careful not to accept the highly reactionary conclusions drawn by the bulk of the environmental movement -- that the way to deal with environmental threats is to reduce development, enforce rationing on people's consumption, and call for Malthusian population controls. We need a radical perspective, and that would firstly necessitate a thorough criticism and rejection of green politics.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah, I heard the the Sierra Club supports restricting immigration to the US on the basis of the Malthusian ideas Vanguard1917 spoke of. Disgusting.

Mostly I hear individualistic and moralistic stuff coming from environmentalists and so I can understand why Watcher and others may get turned off or be skeptical of environmentalist claims.

[commyrebel]

so that shit i breath in everyday that shit over La is natural last time i checked the more population the more smog so i think that its not a quwinkadink that it is there. we are destroying the ozone which does protect us from the sun so stop eating up corporate bullshit and start thinking for your self.

[Idealism]

I believe communism requires also the enlightenment of one man just as much as of a whole society, so I'll try to shed some light on this global warming thing.

The following thoughts are a mix of my thoughts and scientific facts, don't take everything bloody seriously, but also give them serious consideration. If you are unsure, look it up somewhere.


Is global warming, real or made up?

Global warming is real.
However, it is not caused by man.
Global warming is a natural procession, it was existent before man, and probably will be present after man.

Sadly, as my post count is below 25, therefore I am unable to provide any diagrams.

Global warming is mainly caused by vapor and volcanic smoke.
Human CO2 emissions are only 1% of all that causes global warming.
There have been numerous periods of global warming, and global cooling - this is scientifically proven.
The sea level has been rising and decreasing for millions of years, species have always been dying out whilst new ones were born,
and man can not destroy or effectively control this global process.


The accumulating vapor and volcanic smoke and other gases only can reach so high levels, that they actually transform the face of the planet.


Global warming is nothing to fear.
The sea level rising is greatly exaggerated, the worst that could happen, is that plenty of houses right next to shores become uninhabitable / unsafe, and places below the sea level (0) might be also in minor danger, but small water can easily be stopped by man (Netherlands for example is excellent at this, lol).


Climate changes, seasons will too, but nothing unimaginable or deadly will happen globally (I can not say there will be more or there will be less tornadoes, hail- and thunderstorms, etc. Weather is so beautiful and unpredictable!). Our species will easily adapt.

Global warming is unstoppable. Why even try?
I don't know.

However, it might prove useful.
I think only the USA is threatened by this media panic, where Al Gore makes a retard of himself day by day, and even I can suspect some sort of corruption around science budget.
On the other hand, it adds a kind of boost to science, and environmental protection.
Although it has nothing ( or little ) to do with global warming, immense CO2 emissions are bad, and reducing it only helps the planet, and advancing industry.
There are other environmental problems on the planet, which are sadly unspoken of (for example: the ozone layer is still not in any perfect shape, destroying rainforests is horrible), but they all can benefit from this global warming hoax.

The conclusion: you are not responsible, you can't stop it. But if you don't watch out, you can make this planet worse.

If you ask me, keep a cool head and watch what happens.
And protect your environment! The children of your children do not wish to live their lives in a pit full of toxic waste and death.

NOTE: This post was written with the lack of perfection and entirety, and also in early morning.
If I missed anything, do say so, and I will correct it.
If you have any questions, ask away.

Challenge or support me, I'll probably think you are dumb if do the former, but it doesn't matter, I'm nor willing nor able to stop global warming, or this media panic, and you can't prevent it either.

Of course global warming is natural, just like Michel Bachman said CO2 cant be bad because it occurs naturally.
Seriously though I agree with Rood and Gravedigger.

[Klaatu]

"...just like Michel Bachman said CO2 cant be bad because it occurs naturally."
Michelle Bachman needs a clue. She stated that CO2 is 3% of the atmosphere.

(3% ? We would all be: dead.)

BTW, she also referred to the "Hoot-Smalley" tariff act under Roosevelt (It is actually the "Smoot-Hawley Act" under Hoover.)

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

[Klaatu]

proven fact: atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising, and has been rising for years, in an exponential rate of growth.

proven fact: CO2 has a molecular resonance (energy-absorbing vibration) in the infrared wavelength energy level.

proven fact: CO2 is one of many substances which exhibit this property. Also water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and a few others. Black carbon soot is the second-most prominent energy-absorber, according to a recent study.

proven fact: deforestation has a large effect on atmospheric CO2 level. So does industry /transportation.

proven fact: capitalist carbon-based energy corporations are sinking millions of dollars into a false, dubious "hoax" campaign.
__________________________________________________ ____________________
unproven conjecture: water vapor has the greatest effect on warming.

unproven conjecture: variable solar emission is the main cause of warming.
__________________________________________________ ____________________
complete utter fallacy: the whole thing is a cruel hoax. (warming is not happening at all)

complete utter fallacy: volcanoes cause warming (actually they cause cooling)
__________________________________________________ ____________________
The thing that bothers me the most: "Capitalist Energy Corporations" are the chief denialists, and are funding enormously well-funded denial efforts, by so-called "scientists" (we have seen this same type of hyperbole from tobacco "experts") Socialists should be fighting this propaganda, not be sucked up into it!
What this boils down to is: Do We Trust the Word of a Capitalist?

[Revy]

I think a lot of people got sucked into climate denial after the 2006 hurricane season which wasn't the utter catastrophe that was the 2005 hurricane season. A lot of people began to say, well hurricanes aren't the same as they were, so this entire climate change thing must be bunk.

The problem with that is, climate change doesn't just effect hurricanes. There are MANY factors which can impede the development of hurricanes even if the ocean is warm to promote high intensity storms. These include wind shear, and other things.

Climate change involves a lot of multifaceted changes to the climate. This is not just warming, but also cooling, it is a transition to a more chaotic climate. So a lot of people also began to turn to climate denial after the very cold winters we experienced in recent years. To them, this was "obvious" evidence that there was no such thing as "global warming". But keep in mind, this is why it is accurate to use the word "climate change".

Overall, the planet is warming, causing destructive effects already, for the people of Tuvalu, where the tides are rising at a rate that will engulf the island. This warming, however, puts things off balance, so we may experience colder winters as well as warm summers.

Desertification is also one effect that has been observed. All over the world desert is engulfing once fertile regions, leaving people helpless in its wake.

No one is arguing that humanity is going to go extinct. But what are millions (a billion?) lives worth? Yes, we can say there are some of us still alive, but that changes nothing. It is necessary for us to reduce carbon emissions as much as possible (as well as reduce pollution in general). Stop conflating the entire environmental movement with primitivists and Malthusians.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Global warming is happening, but I'm not convinced that it's the massive danger that the Greens and Al Gore are trying to convince us it is.

While a lot of Greenies like to scream about energy companies funding studies that go against global warming, there is not one peep from them about conflict of interest from the other side. I'm sorry, but the idea that companies producing renewable energy generation methods in this day and age are any more honest than the oil giants strikes me as extremely naive.

Think about it - it takes thousands of shitty little windmills or solar panels to equal just one coal burning or nuclear power plant. That means it is in the direct interests of companies that produce solar panels, windmills, etc to tout such methods as a good way of reducing our collective contribution to CO2 emissions. But is it?

I don't think so. Firstly, wind farms and solar panels are more spread out than traditional power stations, so the extra distance means extra fuel is burned during construction and maintenance, as opposed to a nuclear power station where maintenance and construction takes place in one limited area and CO2 emissions are mainly limited to the construction period.

Secondly, renewable energy sources are either intermittent in most areas (solar, wind), limited to fairly specific geological/geographical conditions (hydro, geothermal), or have their own unique problems, such as biofuels which basically involve growing fuel instead of food.

We're not going to help anyone, least of all ourselves, by polarising our options. Personally I'm of the opinion that the way forward involves nuclear power with extensive reprocessing in order to extend the fuel cycle and increase energy, with the more sensible renewables, such as hydropower and geothermal, filling in the gaps. Of course, we could forgo the nuclear power stations entirely if we could build massive solar farms in the desert, but I doubt that will happen any time soon.

[Revy]

NoXion, green energy just doesn't start with building huge areas filled with wind turbines and solar panels. It means solar panels on the roofs of homes, stuff like that. Direct energy from renewable sources.

Nuclear power pollutes a great deal. We have nowhere to put this highly toxic material, so we hollow out mountains (Yucca Mountain) to put it in. This is not a sustainable way of creating energy. I am all behind the idea of nuclear fusion though, since it is supposed to not pollute.

Green energy means experimenting with new technologies. Solar technology is improving all the time. Also, there may be new renewable energy technologies yet developed or discovered that may gain prominence.

We have to move from a destructive economy (capitalism) to a constructive economy (socialism).

As for Al Gore, I despise him, not only for his hypocrisy, but of the damage he has done to the cause all for his own self-promotion. It pains me to see how often Al Gore is mocked in a discussion about climate change, as if he was really relevant. I was deeply disappointed with An Inconvenient Truth, I thought it was not the documentary it should be, instead we got a slideshow with some self-glorifying personal anecdotes.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

NoXion, green energy just doesn't start with building huge areas filled with wind turbines and solar panels. It means solar panels on the roofs of homes, stuff like that. Direct energy from renewable sources.

Putting the solar panels on the roofs of houses doesn't change the fact that it takes materials and energy to install them in the first place. Not only that, but such measures would be purely supplementary. We would still need a good baseload source of energy.


Nuclear power pollutes a great deal.Actually, in comparison to the competition, nuclear power is one of the cleanest options available to us. In the first place, one does not need to mine as much uranium in comparison to coal, since nuclear reactions have a higher energy density. Nuclear power stations provide energy comparable to a coal plant, yet do not produce tons of smoke that is released straight into the atmosphere with little or no processing, nor do they produce tons of toxic fly ash which is dumped with nowhere near the amount of regulatory oversight that nuclear waste recieves.


We have nowhere to put this highly toxic material, so we hollow out mountains (Yucca Mountain) to put it in.We wouldn't need to store anything at Yucca Mountain if we could reprocess the damn stuff.


This is not a sustainable way of creating energy.It depends on how you define "sustainable" doesn't it? Billions of years (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html) sounds sustainable to me.


I am all behind the idea of nuclear fusion though, since it is supposed to not pollute.Make no mistake, all forms of energy generation are pollutive, and I doubt that fusion would be any exception.


Green energy means experimenting with new technologies. Solar technology is improving all the time.Can it get more energy from a square metre of ground than is equal to the amount of sunlight reaching it? Even assuming 100% efficiency (a physical impossibility), solar power has inherent limits to the amount of energy it can practically provide.


Also, there may be new renewable energy technologies yet developed or discovered that may gain prominence.And I'm waiting for my flying car. I can't say I'm holding my breath.


We have to move from a destructive economy (capitalism) to a constructive economy (socialism). As I've pointed out elsewhere, the end of fossil fuels does not necessarily mean the end of capitalism.


As for Al Gore, I despise him, not only for his hypocrisy, but of the damage he has done to the cause all for his own self-promotion. It pains me to see how often Al Gore is mocked in a discussion about climate change, as if he was really relevant. I was deeply disappointed with An Inconvenient Truth, I thought it was not the documentary it should be, instead we got a slideshow with some self-glorifying personal anecdotes.My criticisms are not confined to Al Gore, but can also apply to the mainstream environmentalist movement in general. I think the mainstream environmentalist rejection of nuclear power is a grave mistake.

[Havet]

how can EVERYONE have missed my beautiful reply??

Many companies are profiting FROM this scaremongering, not from going around and saying it is natural for the climate of the earth to not be stable.

[Havet]

proven fact: atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising, and has been rising for years, in an exponential rate of growth.

yup


proven fact: CO2 has a molecular resonance (energy-absorbing vibration) in the infrared wavelength energy level.

yup, had to check that on wikipedia, not that it really matters:

"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) as it transmits visible light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum) but absorbs strongly in the infrared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared) and near-infrared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-infrared)."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2


proven fact: CO2 is one of many substances which exhibit this property. Also water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and a few others. Black carbon soot is the second-most prominent energy-absorber, according to a recent study.

Right again

"Common greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere) include water vapor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor), carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide), methane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane), nitrous oxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide), ozone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone), and chlorofluorocarbons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbons)."

"Emissions of soot, including massive emissions from cookstoves in Asia and Africa, as well as diesel engines and coal plants there, is estimated to account for 18% of global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming). Airborne for weeks, often settling on glaciers, or on ice in arctic regions, black carbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon) absorbs heat directly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_%28electromagnetic_radiation%29)."

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

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

Next time though, actualy link to the study you mention please. Just saying "a study" is useless, meaningless and misleading.


proven fact: deforestation has a large effect on atmospheric CO2 level. So does industry /transportation.

Yup, i guess that was pretty obvious: one transforms co2 into o2, so the less there is, the less co2 will be transformed to o2. The other expels co2 directly.


proven fact: capitalist carbon-based energy corporations are sinking millions of dollars into a false, dubious "hoax" campaign.

This is where you start to slip off. What a shame! You were doing so well on your own!

In any case, there is no proof of "millions of dollars" by many capitalists. However, you have some reason on this, because some indeed tried to buy some scientists, although they were not capitalists, but GOVERNMENT PEOPLE:

Governments tried to buy off some scientists to fit their political agenda

"Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of a former oil-industry lobbyist.[180] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-179) In a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General it has been revealed that NASA officials censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election"

"U.S. officials, such as Philip Cooney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Cooney), have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,[182] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-181) many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Knutson), have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.[183] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-182)[184] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-183)[185] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-184) Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by journalist Chris Mooney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Mooney) in his book The Republican War on Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republican_War_on_Science).
Climate scientist James Hansen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen), director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddard_Institute_for_Space_Studies), claimed in a widely cited New York Times article[186] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-185) in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public." NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA) denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheric_Administration) have made similar complaints;[187] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-186) once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums."


"The BBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC)'s long-running current affairs series Panorama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panorama_%28TV_series%29) recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed."

Other Governments try to silence scientists that express doubts about AGW

On the other hand, some American climatologists who have expressed doubts regarding the certainty of human influence in climate change have been criticized by politicians and governmental agencies. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kulongoski) publicly clarified that Oregon does not officially appoint a "state climatologist" in response to Oregon State University's George Taylor's use of that title.[189] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-188)[190] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-189) As a result of scientific doubts he has expressed regarding global warming, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control reportedly attempted to remove David Legates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Legates) from his office of Delaware State Climatologist.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] In late 2006, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Kaine) (D) reportedly began an investigation of Virginia State Climatologist and global warming skeptic Patrick Michaels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels).
Scientists who agree with the consensus view have sometimes expressed concerns over what they view as sensationalism of global warming by interest groups and the press. For example Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like "catastrophic," "chaotic" and "irreversible," had altered the public discourse around climate change: "This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as 'climate change is worse than we thought', that we are approaching 'irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate', and that we are 'at the point of no return'. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric."[191] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-190)


"According to an Associated Press release on January 30, 2007,
“ Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming. ” “ The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report."[192] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-191) ” Critics writing in the Wall Street Journal editorial page claim that the survey[193] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-192) was itself unscienticfic" (gotta love the irony in this last part, wall street itself is against these "dissenting scientists".


There is more evidence of funding (or lack of) in either parts though:


"Both sides of the controversy have alleged that access to funding has played a role in the willingness of credentialed experts to speak out.
Several skeptical scientists—Fred Singer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer), Fred Seitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Seitz) and Patrick Michaels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels)—have been linked to organizations funded by ExxonMobil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil) and Philip Morris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morris_USA) for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism [136] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-ExxonSecrets.org-SoundScienceCoalition-135)[137] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-monbiot06-136) (see section: Risks of passive smoking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Risks_of_passive_smokin g)). Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the George C. Marshall Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute), have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-137)


"The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_ Change), a skeptic group, when confronted about the funding of a video they put together ($250,000 for "The Greening of Planet Earth" from an oil company) stated, "We applaud Western Fuels for their willingness to publicize a side of the story that we believe to be far more correct than what at one time was 'generally accepted.' But does this mean that they fund The Center? Maybe it means that we fund them!"[/URL]


"A number of global warming skeptics, such as the following, assert that grant money is given preferentially to supporters of global warming theory. Atmospheric scientist Reid Bryson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-147) said in June 2007 that "There is a lot of money to be made in this... If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"[150] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-149) Similar claims have been advanced by climatologist Marcel Leroux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Leroux),[151] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-150) NASA's Roy Spencer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29), climatologist and IPCC contributor John Christy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy), University of London biogeographer Philip Stott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Stott),[152] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-151) and Accuracy in Media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_in_Media)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-152)



Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Political_pressure_on_s cientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-137)


[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Funding_for_partisans


__________________________________________________ ____________________


unproven conjecture: water vapor has the greatest effect on warming.

Actually, it's not an unproven conjecture. It's common knowledge ammong climatologists:

"Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F).[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#cite_note-IPCC_WG1_AR4_Ch1-17)[C] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#cnote_C) The major greenhouse gases are water vapor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor), which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_forcing)); carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide) (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane) (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone), which causes 3–7 percent."

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


unproven conjecture: variable solar emission is the main cause of warming

Well, there is certainly evidence that correlates as well as co2 to temperature, but i don't think either is a direct cause-effect phenomena.

"A few studies claim that the present level of solar activity is historically high as determined by sunspot activity and other factors. Solar activity could affect climate either by variation in the Sun's output or, more speculatively, by an indirect effect on the amount of cloud formation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation_theory#Effects_on_clouds). Solanki and co-workers suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years; Muscheler et al. disagree, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years.[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#cite_note-63) Both Muscheler et al. and Solanki et al. conclude that "solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Solar_variation
__________________________________________________ ____________________

complete utter fallacy: the whole thing is a cruel hoax. (warming is not happening at all)

Actually, you'll find most skeptics are just against the notion that it is human CO2 emissions that are causing this. They agree the earth is getting warmer just as AGW advcocates claim. The science is there to prove so.

There is, however, some minor *****ing from both parts on the subject, namely on the precision with which the weather is being measured:

"Skeptics have questioned the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record) on the basis of the urban heat island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island) effect, the quality of the surface station network and what they view as unwarranted adjustments to the temperature record."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Instrumental_temperatur e_record


complete utter fallacy: volcanoes cause warming (actually they cause cooling)

Actually, i wasn't able to find any sound information on this (yes, unlike you, i actually look for and post information to whether statements are true or false, instead of just STATING they are true or false).

I did find an interesting story that, if true (didnt have time to see the study they mentioned) will prove you wrong:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268800,00.html


The same volcanic eruptions that sundered Greenland from Western Europe and created Iceland 55 million years ago also triggered intense global warming, scientists say.
"There has been evidence in the marine record of this period of global warming (javascript:siteSearch('global%20warming');), and evidence in the geologic record of the eruptions at roughly the same time," said study team member Robert Duncan, an oceanic scientist at Oregon State University, "but until now there has been no direct link between the two."
During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (javascript:siteSearch('Paleocene-Eocene%20Thermal%20Maximum');) (PETM), massive amounts of greenhouse gases were injected into the oceans and atmosphere, causing global sea surface temperatures to rise by up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit.


In any case, volcanos emit a lot more water vapor (which causes more global warming) than any other gas:


"The concentrations of different volcanic gases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_gas) can vary considerably from one volcano to the next. Water vapor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor) is typically the most abundant volcanic gas, followed by carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide) and sulfur dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide). Other principal volcanic gases include hydrogen sulfide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide), hydrogen chloride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_chloride), and hydrogen fluoride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fluoride). A large number of minor and trace gases are also found in volcanic emissions, for example hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen), carbon monoxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide), halocarbons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halocarbon), organic compounds, and volatile metal chlorides."


HOWEVER, what you said is NOT ENTIRELY INCORRECT, because they cool as well, since they emit So2. Wikipedia explains it better:


"Large, explosive volcanic eruptions inject water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF) and ash (pulverized rock and pumice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumice)) into the stratosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere) to heights of 16–32 kilometres (10–20 mi) above the Earth's surface. The most significant impacts from these injections come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid) (H2SO4), which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfate) aerosols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulate). The aerosols increase the Earth's albedo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo)—its reflection of radiation from the Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun) back into space - and thus cool the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere; however, they also absorb heat radiated up from the Earth, thereby warming the stratosphere" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere)


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano#Effects_of_volcanoes


I hope i cleared this. Next time, don't make empty claims without backing them up, even though you got some of them right.


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere)

__________________________________________________ ____________________

[Klaatu]

I did not post references, because I wanted to keep it a short, easy-read. Besides it was very late.
The references on soot and air pollution's role in arctic warming:

Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html

Role of Black Carbon on Global and Regional Climate Change (PDF file)
V. Ramanathan
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California at San Diego
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071018110734.pdf
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
I am an independent researcher, not connected with windmill, solar, etc companies.
And it does work both ways: the wind/solar companies are capitalist, as well as energy companies.
And it is not only the capitalists, but govt as well: Bush tried (and succeeded) to muzzle scientists.
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
As for the water vapor warming effect:

(A) Unlike CO2, the water vapor content of the atmosphere is always fluctuating from saturation down
to the driest desert conditions. This is the effect of precipitation and storms. The warming effects are
variable and highly localized, but not global.

(B) Increasing humidity leading to saturation creates more clouds, which both reflect light back into space,
as well as shield the planet surface from direct sunlight (which in turn reduces radiant warming effect.)

(C) Extremely cold temperatures allow only minute amounts of atmospheric water-holding capacity, due to:
1) Low water vapor pressure at low temperatures
2) Water vapor hydrogen-bonding forces exceeding the inherent momentum of water vapor gas collisions;
hence low atmospheric "carrying capacity" for water vapor at low temperatures

Given (C) why then is the most warming taking effect at the polar regions? There is not very much moisture
there at all. Yet in the tropics, with the highest absolute humidity levels, why little or no warming effect?
Perhaps mitigated by clouds? Increased plant growth? Considering plant growth, photosynthesis is one of
the most endothermic reactions (actually it is a series of reactions) known to man:

Photosynthesis Gº= + 479.1 kJ/ mol [for 1/6(glucose) CH2O]

Why is photosynthesis interesting? File Format: PDF
http://www.if.uj.edu.pl/Foton/92-special%20issue/pdf/06%20kburda.pdf


"The amount of energy trapped by photosynthesis is immense, approximately 100 terawatts:[3]
which is about six times larger than the power consumption of human civilization.[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

This raises a question: Could it be that good ol' photosynthesis is the reason that warming is "held
in check" at the earth's torrid zone? And seasonally in temperate zones? But what about the polar zones?
NO PHOTOSYNTHESIS taking place there! Hence greatest warming effect there. Same for mountain
tops with their melting glaciers as evidence.

In conclusion:
High latitudes and high altitudes: CO2 is there; H2O vapor is not; black soot is there; plants are not.
We should thus call this polar warming rather than global warming?

[Havet]

I did not post references, because I wanted to keep it a short, easy-read. Besides it was very late.
The references on soot and air pollution's role in arctic warming:

Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html

Role of Black Carbon on Global and Regional Climate Change (PDF file)
V. Ramanathan
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California at San Diego
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071018110734.pdf
__________________________________________________ _________________________________


This part i had already pretty much backed up, but thanks anyway. I never claimed greenhouse gases had no effect on global warming. I only questioned the Global Warming Potential of some gases.


I am an independent researcher, not connected with windmill, solar, etc companies.
And it does work both ways: the wind/solar companies are capitalist, as well as energy companies.
And it is not only the capitalists, but govt as well: Bush tried (and succeeded) to muzzle scientists.I am also an independent researcher (maybe not as much dedicated to it now). I personally wouldnt care if you were connected with windmill, solar, coal, or any other fuel companies. Sure it might affect your motives, but we were not discussing motives. we were discussing science and facts. And yeah, like i said, it's not only capitalists (although there might have been business attached to governments)
__________________________________________________ _________________________________

As for the water vapor warming effect:


(A) Unlike CO2, the water vapor content of the atmosphere is always fluctuating from saturation down
to the driest desert conditions. This is the effect of precipitation and storms. The warming effects are
variable and highly localized, but not global.Yes. But then again, we have water vapor all over the globe, even though it might not be whats driving this current warming


(B) Increasing humidity leading to saturation creates more clouds, which both reflect light back into space,
as well as shield the planet surface from direct sunlight (which in turn reduces radiant warming effect.)Yeah you're right on this one. There was also an hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis) "that suggested increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_cloud) and thus more infrared radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_radiation) leakage from Earth's atmosphere "

However, this does not meat water vapor is less of a greenhouse gas, on the contrary. "Water vapor is also a potent greenhouse gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas). Because the water vapor content of the atmosphere is expected to greatly increase in response to warmer temperatures, there is the potential for a water vapor feedback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor_feedback) that could amplify the expected climate warming effect due to increased carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide) alone. However, it is less clear how cloudiness would respond to a warming climate; depending on the nature of the response, clouds could either further amplify or partly mitigate the water vapor feedback."

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor#Water_vapor_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere)


(C) Extremely cold temperatures allow only minute amounts of atmospheric water-holding capacity, due to:
1) Low water vapor pressure at low temperatures
2) Water vapor hydrogen-bonding forces exceeding the inherent momentum of water vapor gas collisions;
hence low atmospheric "carrying capacity" for water vapor at low temperaturesi'll presume this is true, although you have not provided any source to back this up.


Given (C) why then is the most warming taking effect at the polar regions? There is not very much moisture
there at all. Yet in the tropics, with the highest absolute humidity levels, why little or no warming effect?
Perhaps mitigated by clouds? Increased plant growth? Considering plant growth, photosynthesis is one of
the most endothermic reactions (actually it is a series of reactions) known to man:

Photosynthesis Gº= + 479.1 kJ/ mol [for 1/6(glucose) CH2O]

Why is photosynthesis interesting? File Format: PDF
http://www.if.uj.edu.pl/Foton/92-special%20issue/pdf/06%20kburda.pdf

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

This begs the question: Could it be that good ol' photosynthesis is the reason that warming is "held
in check" at the earth's torrid zone? And seasonally in temperate zones? But what about the polar zones?
NO PHOTOSYNTHESIS taking place there! Hence greatest warming effect there. Same for mountain
tops with their melting glaciers as evidence. Interesting, i had never heard of such an hypothesis. It kind of make sense. Thanks for sharing this up (along with the photosynthesis links).

However, i don't know why you decided to post this (unless as a new hypothesis and to increase my knowledge on the subject). If this was intended to refute what i said, well it hasn't, it just adds up. Water vapor still continues to have a greater effect than CO2, and besides i never mentioned any specifics on the distribution (which you now have provided).


In conclusion:
High latitudes and high altitudes: CO2 is there; H2O vapor is not; black soot is there; plants are not.
We should thus call this polar warming rather than global warming?In conclusion: I always tried to disprove your claim that "water vapor hadn't the greatest effect on warming" generally speaking. What you have proven is that it doesn't in this particular warming. Yet i didn't claim water vapor was what was driving the climate or this particular warming. I always stated it was the greenhouse gas known to have the greatest effect on warming, generally speaking.

[Klaatu]

(C) Extremely cold temperatures allow only minute amounts of atmospheric water-holding capacity, due to:
1) Low water vapor pressure at low temperatures
2) Water vapor hydrogen-bonding forces exceeding the inherent momentum of water vapor gas collisions;
hence low atmospheric "carrying capacity" for water vapor at low temperatures
i'll presume this is true, although you have not provided any source to back this up.
I should not assume that everyone has a chemistry textbook at hand (as I have, for I am a teacher)
From this reference, note that a comparison of "saturated vapor density: g/m³" amounts to an almost
20-fold increase in the water-carrying-capacity of warm air vs cold air (for temperatures -10ºC vs 35ºC)
(that is ~2 g/m³ vs ~40g/m³) From this, we can conclude that very little actual moisture exists in the
planet's frigid high latitudes. More warming should be occurring at the equator than the poles.
(20 times as much?) Yet, the reverse appears to be true: poles are actually warming faster.

The claim that high IR-absorption bands of water vapor somehow "prove" that CO2 is not a major
player in the warming scenario does not take overall geographical locations into account. Some areas
have extremely low absolute humidity content, with (what would seem to be) minimal effect of
H2O vapor. This is why I am highly skeptical of claims of water vapor being the primary impetus
of global warming.

Saturated Vapor Pressure, Density for Water
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/kinetic/watvap.html

A hydrogen bond is a strong inter-molecular attraction between polar molecules. (polar, as in molecular
electrostatic forces, not earth's poles) Their attraction force on individual water molecules is almost like
a glue of sorts, which essentially causes water molecules to stick together, so to speak.

If atmospheric temperatures are sufficiently high, the individual water vapor molecules simply bounce
off of one another during normal gas phase collisions, because they possess sufficient kinetic energy
to overcome the "sticky" attractive forces of hydrogen bonding.

As air temperature drops, the h-bonding forces tend to overcome the momentum of the (otherwise)
elastic collision. It's kind of like throwing two pieces of sticky clay at each other: They don't bounce
apart like colliding rubber balls would; they stick together. This is what happens during the process
of condensation of water vapor.

Hydrogen bond
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bond



Interesting, i had never heard of such an hypothesis. It kind of make sense. Thanks for sharing this up (along with the photosynthesis links).
Thank you. I am happy to share this. I had personally postulated this theory about ten years ago.
If you happen to know scientists, please share this theory, and ask them to poke holes in the idea
if they want to (isn't this how science works?)



In conclusion: I always tried to disprove your claim that "water vapor hadn't the greatest effect on warming" generally speaking. What you have proven is that it doesn't in this particular warming. Yet i didn't claim water vapor was what was driving the climate or this particular warming. I always stated it was the greenhouse gas known to have the greatest effect on warming, generally speaking.

The problem is, many uninformed folks out there are trying to use the "water vapor IR absorption"
parameter as if we should ignore calls to cut CO2. They attack Al Gore, calling him an "idiot"
and everything else. Seems like they want an excuse to continue to drive their gas-hogging SUV.
Interestingly enough, their vehicle's exhaust contains about as much water vapor as CO2!

[Vanguard1917]

We're not going to help anyone, least of all ourselves, by polarising our options. Personally I'm of the opinion that the way forward involves nuclear power with extensive reprocessing in order to extend the fuel cycle and increase energy, with the more sensible renewables, such as hydropower and geothermal, filling in the gaps. Of course, we could forgo the nuclear power stations entirely if we could build massive solar farms in the desert, but I doubt that will happen any time soon.


And greens are against it happening. They want energy supplies small scale and localised. They say that they're for renewable energy, but they're against the kinds of large-scale projects to which you refer and which could make renewable energy workable. What they really want are reductions in energy consumption (which they no doubt hope a switch to renewables will represent and necessitate), not the vast increases in energy supply which societies need to develop and become more prosperous.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What they really want are reductions in energy consumption (which they no doubt hope a switch to renewables will represent and necessitate), not the vast increases in energy supply which societies need to develop and become more prosperous.

Well if I were the EU I would be seeking to make deals with the right North African countries and offering tax breaks to the relevant industries in both areas. Economics is a funny old game. :lol:

But realistically, such projects make a trans-national or trans-continental society necessary.

[Klaatu]

proven fact: capitalist carbon-based energy corporations are sinking millions of dollars into a false, dubious "hoax" campaign.

I should not call this "proven fact."

Rather, there is probable cause of capitalists getting their greasy hands into this matter by bending science. They must take their lessons from the so-called "born-again-christians," who have been experts at spreading hyperbole (they have been at it for centuries)

[Comrade Blaze]

I don't know what to believe when it comes to global warming, all I know is that at least its forcing people to look at alternatives to fossil fuels, and a closer look at the impact we can have on our small planet.

Comrade Blaze

p.s death to capitalism

[RedAthena1919]

yup

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268800,00.html




I'm not involving myself in this debate, just want to point this out and make you think about the source for a second.

[Invader Zim]

We wouldn't need to store anything at Yucca Mountain if we could reprocess the damn stuff.

But we can't. next.

[Havet]

I'm not involving myself in this debate, just want to point this out and make you think about the source for a second.

yes good point

"Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States) political positions"

In any case, I don't usually trust sources that say:

"... scientists say."

Yet in this case i believe the actual source MIGHT be credible:

"" said study team member Robert Duncan, an oceanic scientist at Oregon State University, "

"In the new study, detailed in the April 27 issue of the journal Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/), "

Nevertheless, thanks for pointing that out.

I naturally filter political agenda from news, because political-biased news usually come with "scientists say"; "a new research said" (notice, without mentioning which scientists, what research, and how it was actually performed, to see if it followed the scientific principles or not), etc

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But we can't. next.

The reason we "can't" reprocess waste is political, not physical. Nuclear reprocessing in the US was suspended in 1976 and wasn't lifted until 1981. Even then, it took until 2005 for site preparations for a single reprocessing facility to begin. Yucca Mountain has been a proposed site for years, but opposition has prevented any actual storage of nuclear waste, with the result that nuclear plants have to resort to on-site storage.

Call me Mr Silly, but I think it would be much safer and more efficient if there were dedicated facilities for storing and reprocessing waste, rather than forcing nuclear plants to have a potentially useful energy source lying around doing nothing. Yet you can't even move the damn stuff without some hemp-clad manchild kicking up a fuss.

[Klaatu]

"I naturally filter political agenda from news, because political-biased news usually come with "scientists say"; "a new research said" (notice, without mentioning which scientists, what research, and how it was actually performed, to see if it followed the scientific principles or not), etc"

That is the best approach. There is a lot of quackery out there. Good to be careful.



"The reason we "can't" reprocess waste is political, not physical."

Perhaps too expensive to be practical?

[Psy]

Think about it - it takes thousands of shitty little windmills or solar panels to equal just one coal burning or nuclear power plant. That means it is in the direct interests of companies that produce solar panels, windmills, etc to tout such methods as a good way of reducing our collective contribution to CO2 emissions. But is it?

I don't think so. Firstly, wind farms and solar panels are more spread out than traditional power stations, so the extra distance means extra fuel is burned during construction and maintenance, as opposed to a nuclear power station where maintenance and construction takes place in one limited area and CO2 emissions are mainly limited to the construction period.

Not really since wind farms are not build in the middle of nowhere but simply in rural areas that already have transportation demands, meaning the material required to maintain the wind farms can share the same freight train supplying the rural community and picking up products and material produced by the rural communities (mined material, lumber, timber, agricultural products, ect).



Secondly, renewable energy sources are either intermittent in most areas (solar, wind), limited to fairly specific geological/geographical conditions (hydro, geothermal), or have their own unique problems, such as biofuels which basically involve growing fuel instead of food.

There are areas where there isn't much intermittency like wind farms out in the water along the coast.



We're not going to help anyone, least of all ourselves, by polarising our options. Personally I'm of the opinion that the way forward involves nuclear power with extensive reprocessing in order to extend the fuel cycle and increase energy, with the more sensible renewables, such as hydropower and geothermal, filling in the gaps. Of course, we could forgo the nuclear power stations entirely if we could build massive solar farms in the desert, but I doubt that will happen any time soon.
There is no reason why we couldn't build large solar farms in the desert and large wind farms along coast lines.

[Manifesto]

I heard that most of the CO2 emissions come from animals like cows.

[TheFutureOfThePublic]

Ive heard alot about global warning being caused by us being bs and that it is a natural process.I think its a bit of both tbh.All the vehicles and other things that pollute cant be good,but i dont think its enough to destroy the planet.Government lies,not lies but more over exadurated

[Klaatu]

Two very important reasons we are not cooking yet:

(A) Deep Solar Minimum
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

(B) Much volcanic activity over the past decade spewing cooling-effect particulates

Soufrière Hills Volcano (Montserrat)
Mount Etna (Sicily)
Mount Redoubt (Alaska)
Fourpeaked Mountain (Alaska)
Cleveland Volcano (Alaska)
Others (Archived Volcanic Events of Interest)
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/activity/archive/

Solar radiation reduction from volcanic eruptions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3aMauna_Loa_atmospheric_transmission.png

Volcanoes of the world
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/

[Klaatu]

Here is a another good discussion on warming (some actual scientists here)

Debunking Another Climate Change Crock: What's Up with Anthony Watts? [video]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/debunking-another-climate_b_244903.html