Senate votes to begin global warming debate

[IisJustMe]

How will the legislation help us?

How about making us more efficient in how we use energy. Europe and Japan are going to weather the rapidly increasing cost of oil a lot more effectively than we are as their economies are less dependant on oil. If anything's going to make America fall behind economically it's our highly inefficient use of energy.

Until those technologies are economically viable, the cap and trade legislation will do nothing but increase energy costs through unfair and unrealistic taxation. Europe and Japan are paying nearly three times the cost of a gallon of gas than we are. Explain that one, if they are so much better prepared to "weather the rapidly increasing cost of oil."

 

[chaim]

Well seeing you won't discuss this, I will post this for the benefit of the other posters. Lets go through the links you posted:
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
This is a peer reviewed paper, and I commend you for that. However the paper does not claim that humans are not responsible for current climate change, but that the climate sensitivity is at the low end of the expected range. Additionally this entire study is based on a very simple single parameter model, which even the studies author states:
"Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question
must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its
key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it
might have to be said that it remains to be seen. In this context it is hoped that the present study might
stimulate further work along these lines with more complex models."

This work in no way disproves AGW, it just provides a slightly different sensitivity derived using a different approach to most other climate models. Please don't miss-represent it as being anything else.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200412\NAT20041207a.html

This article is a joke. It is the opinion of a single anthropologist claiming that there is no consensus amongst climate scientists and that the Oreskes study that clearly shows that there is somehow false.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Is entirely based on the false premise (as demonstrated earlier) that the majority of Co2 in the atmosphere is not from humans. It also completely ignores the concept of water vapor feedback, which is well understood by climate scientists (which the author of this unpublished non-peer reviewd web page is not).

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-...ng.htm#preface

I don't even know where to start with this one. For now we can just address Figure 2 - which claims(without reference mind you) that the Mann et al reconstruction is wrong. Never mind the fact that the national academies and the National Research Council both validated the Mann result and it agrees with half a dozen other temperature reconstructions. Why would you choose to believe some random web page over the most prestigious institutions in the country and copious peer reviewed data?

Finally the OISM survey has already been discussed here in detail. It is hard to take it to seriously when it has been signed by Ginger spice, senator Byrd and Michael J Fox.
I

I'm not discussing it with you. I'm posting in oppositon to the "big lie" you keep telling.Not "claimed to ... " but "Have." Your refusal to accept them makes them no less proof that there is no consensus. For those interested:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200412\NAT20041207a.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#preface
hm.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

In addition, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) has a petiton signed by 31,000 scientists, mathematicians, physicists and other climate professionals and those in related fields denouncing the alleged "consensus" Chaim will tell you "they are not qualified." Well, that opinion isn't worth to the cost of the cyberspace it is written in, so I'll let those 31,000 signatures speak for themselves. They say loudly and clearly, "There is no consensus." It's the "Big Lie."

 

[HollandScotts]

How about making us more efficient in how we use energy. Europe and Japan are going to weather the rapidly increasing cost of oil a lot more effectively than we are as their economies are less dependant on oil. If anything's going to make America fall behind economically it's our highly inefficient use of energy.

How will it make us more efficient? And this will affect all energy sources, not just oil. And how is efficiency going to help us when what we have left of our manufacturing jobs go oversees to escape the new energy taxes and take advantage of the already cheap labor?

Unless there are provisions in this bill to drill for new oil, and build nuclear power plants, this will do nothing to help us energy wise.

HollandScotts why do you feel the need to keep calling so many people morons? I understand there is a debate on what effect humans have on global warming and what we can do about it if anything. Having said that it's pretty obvious that global warming exists. The evidence is just so overwhelming.This is not some left vs. right issue. The state of our planet is bigger than such a petty rivalry. It's bigger than me. It's bigger than you or any other person.

Because I don't like what these people are going to force down our throats in the name of the "climate".

I concede the climate is changing, never said it wasn't. Antartica was a rainforest millions of years ago, and once upon a time, most of this country was covered with ice.

I have to agree about the ethanol push being effectively a scam. So I hope that doesn't come in to play on a debate about the realities of global warming.

It was pushed on us in the name of global warming. If that was a scam, then what other scams are they going to force on us?

This entire bill is a scam. It generates billions is a tax that isn't a tax where the government doesn't have to prove that the program is even working. They don't have to demonstrate the temperature has dropped, and it won't with China and India coming online. China is the biggest polluter, and no one is doing anything about them. Instead we're going to strangle our economy while they laugh at us.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

It was pushed on us in the name of global warming. If that was a scam, then what other scams are they going to force on us?

And what’s more – I’m worried about the other crazy schemes that people are dreaming up. Here’s one for starters – where a well known and respected climate scientist is proposing adding sulphur to jet fuel to counter GW

Now remember when sulphur in fuel was bad, and scinetists were telling us to take it out? Acid rain killing forests and all that. Now that’s OK, if they’ve realised that GW is bad, and that putting this stuff into the climate will do less harm. Well, ummm

He conceded there were risks to global dimming via sulphur. "The consequences of doing that are unknown."

So the obvious question is – why say it at all? More climate fear? Some publicity for his next book? Or maybe he really doesn’t know, but is prepared to take an unscientific punt on the climate.

These people scare me way more than Global warming does.

 

[IisJustMe]

The articles posted by me earlier have been mischaracterized. Read them for yourselves. Take the word of a man who would say anything to discredit the truth of a lack of consensus regarding global warming at your own risk.

 

[FilM]

Until those technologies are economically viable, the cap and trade legislation will do nothing but increase energy costs through unfair and unrealistic taxation. Europe and Japan are paying nearly three times the cost of a gallon of gas than we are. Explain that one, if they are so much better prepared to "weather the rapidly increasing cost of oil."

What alternative technologies? We can start with using the current technologies more efficiently including building up our public transport infrastructure using current technologies.

What's the average mpg of a car in Europe vs America? 40mpg vs 20.4mpg. What alternatives do Europeans have for travelling to work - train, metro, bus or bicycle. Americans? What are significant energy source in Europe? Nuclear, hydro and wind power, none trully affected by increasing oil prices.

For every dollar increase in a barrel of oil, we are more severly affected than a European.

Maybe that's why when I'm talking to my colleagues over in Europe they aren't making as much of a big deal about the increasing oil prices as my colleagues here...

 

[Peterk45]

That's already the second petition by OISM and even that has been discussed to death here. The first one that boasted over 21000 signatures fell out flat when people looked into it more carefully.

Many scientists had no idea that their names were on the list, some names were twice, and some people who were claimed to have signed the petition didn't even exist.

The new one has faced same kind of troubles, but by all means, don't let that stop you from using the same lie again and again and again.

Also, the man behind the petition (Arthur B. Robinson) denies evolution, is part of Discovery institute, has lobbied for ID to be taught at schools and has been on Enron's payroll but stopped his association with Enron at the time he started the petition, to "avoid any links with energy industries".

The other people in the background of the petition are also part of Discovery Institute, and one of them (Mary Tiffany Gilder) has said to do anything to make people believe that God should be trusted instead of science.

And since the general view is that global warming can't exist because God wouldn't let it and all that, it becomes pretty apparent what the primary forces behind the petition are.

 

[BlackAndy]

Our Congress is a joke.
We have enough real problems to worry about without making some up.

 

[IisJustMe]

The petition is not a "second petition" and the 31,000 signatures are up from 21,000 two months ago and 17,000 three months ago. They include over 2,000 climatologists and meteorologists. So much for "consensus." The preious characterization is a bold-faced lie. The OISM is a well-respected organization that is dedicated to the improvement of the quality of life. And my heavens, let's get the pitchforks and torches, the founder is an ID proponent and is a young earth creationist! Good grief, get a life!

 

[FilM]

The petition is not a "second petition" and the 31,000 signatures are up from 21,000 two months ago and 17,000 three months ago. They include over 2,000 climatologists and meteorologists. So much for "consensus." The preious characterization is a bold-faced lie. The OISM is a well-respected organization that is dedicated to the improvement of the quality of life. And my heavens, let's get the pitchforks and torches, the founder is an ID proponent and is a young earth creationist! Good grief, get a life!

Get a life? I thought an anger management counseller would have a different approach to debating...

This is all rather immaterial as you fully well know the position of our republican candidate on climate change. You'll be voting for a guy who is a strong proponent of severly limiting human carbon emissions and is proposing a cap and trade system!

 

[Peterk45]

IisJustMe, you are aware that the petition just a rehash from the one they started circulating in 1998 but worded differently, right?

OISM is not any kind of respected organization or insitute, it consists of 6 people who just publish anti-science material, sell home-schooling stuff to counter "evil public schools that work against God" and sell manuals on how to survive nuclear wars.

But you're right about the old names being re-used in the new petition. They still have the numerous false names and duplicates up. Very credible.

 

[IisJustMe]

Get a life? I thought an anger management counseller would have a different approach to debating...

Point taken. My bad. And shhhhh ... you're not supposed to remember that when I "go off."

This is all rather immaterial as you fully well know the position of our republican candidate on climate change. You'll be voting for a guy who is a strong proponent of severly limiting human carbon emissions and is proposing a cap and trade system!

You might be surprised to know I really don't have a problem with reducing carbon emissions, though I think cap and trade systems are just another word for "taxes" and we've already got too many for the corporations in the country to be incented to reinvest. I do cringe at the thought of it being done in line with Gore's carbon offset strategy and his bogus AGW hysteria. I don't disagree that temperatures are going up, by a total of one degree in 100 years. In reality, that's nothing, dire computer model predictions to the contrary. The net effect has been nothing. Yes, ice in the Arctic is melting. Ice in the Antarctic is geting thicker and the winters are geting colder. Carbon dioxide is not increasing at sufficient enough rates to account for either.

I actually welcome hybrids and even more so, hydrogen fuel cell technology. I came across Kansas a couple weeks ago and was impressed by the new wind farms, and though they're coyote ugly, they work. We need to build new nuclear plants, encourage public transportation (and make it more than "poor people's" transport), and make it mandatory to carpool into downtown business districts of the 50 largest US cities. I just don't believe AGW. It is not proven, far from a consensus, and I feel railroaded into doing something based on bad science.

 

[Greatcloud]

When you consider that most of the people who got the mailer threw it away. That is a very large number perhaps 8,000 . Of the number who sent it back but were playing a prank 2,500 a number almost certainly wrong. This leaves 20,000 people who legitimately believe AGW is wrong a large number indeed.​

 

[IisJustMe]

IisJustMe, you are aware that the petition just a rehash from the one they started circulating in 1998 but worded differently, right

?Continuing to repeat the "big lie" doesn't make it any more credible.

OISM is not any kind of respected organization or insitute, it consists of 6 people who just publish anti-science material, sell home-schooling stuff to counter "evil public schools that work against God" and sell manuals on how to survive nuclear wars.

Your opinion, based on your disagreement with young earth creationism, ID, and an apparent hatred for homeschooling. You've said a lot. Not one iota of sourcing or proof, however, have you bother to post with your comments.

 

[Peterk45]

<Staff Edit> Even the Oregon Petition homepage http://www.oism.org/pproject/ says it started in 1998. So that's the "big lie"? You really have nothing more to say so you start accusing of lies even when the pages you want others to read have information that contradicts your accusations? You're really desperate.

And it's not my opinion what the six members of the institute do. You can find all the information you want from their web page. http://www.oism.org/nwss/ See? There's the book they're selling on how to survive nuclear war!

The homeschooling one? http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p1014.htm
The people behind that seem to be very angry at evil "multiculturalism" with a bonus added story of stupid black people who can't even write English properly! In the same page you will find complaining how evolution is a lie.

<Staff Edit>

 

[IisJustMe]

Okay IisJustMe, you're just out of your mind. Even the Oregon Petition homepage http://www.oism.org/pproject/ says it started in 1998. So that's the "big lie"? You really have nothing more to say so you start accusing of lies even when the pages you want others to read have information that contradicts your accusations?

Contradicts them? You just confirmed them! And you call me desperate?

And it's not my opinion what the six members of the institute do.

What they do? I didn't dispute what they do. I'm proud of them for what they do. It's your warped view of the world and your rejection of Christian ministry that makes you view their work as somehow subversive or whatever hysterical reaction it is that you have to them.

The homeschooling one? http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p1014.htm
The people behind that seem to be very angry at evil "multiculturalism" with a bonus added story of stupid black people who can't even write English properly! In the same page you will find complaining how evolution is a lie.

You know that comment I just made regarding your hysterical reaction? Duplicate it here. Multiculturalism is the liberals' version of codified discrimination, allowing it to continue in the guise of "diversity that protects minority culture" when in reality what it does is protect the liberal elite by making the minorities feel "protected" and "valued" when in reality the multicultural efforts perpetuate stereotypes and the majority perception of those cultures as inferior to their own. Additionally, your averse reaction to homeschooling is nothing more than a perpetuation of your own elitist snobbery that denies your basic prejudice not just against people of color, but also people of faith.

If you want to throw accusations around, you better make sure first that your lies won't be caught so easily.

On the contrary, the only one "caught" here is you in your elitist mentality that allows itself the comfort of discrimination without revealing to itself the reality of your inborn bigotry.

 

[Peterk45]

I don't even know how to start answering to this one... You just said that it's "the big lie" that OISM circulated the petition in 1998.. When I show you the proof that you asked for that they actually did have the same petition, you say that it somehow confirms that they didn't?

The bottom line is that OISM had the same petition ten years ago, it was false back then and it's still false. The only thing you can come up with is that I'm hysterical because I don't believe in creationism and that global warming is a lie? Your attitude is the hysterical one here. From the start you have offered no real proof of anything, brushed off everything told to you, put words into mouths of others, twisted their words and in the end started to insult them.

You think it's not bigotry to keep talking about how stupid black people are, but then you say that I'm prejudiced against non-whites because I point out that your hero keeps complaining about how stupid they are?

To you, this is not about the global warming. It's just another attack on what you think is "liberalism", never mind that this issue isn't divisive in any other country than US. It's clear you have no understanding of the subject, you just keep repeating the lines you have learnt and when caught with lie, you turn everything upside down and start accusing of racism because you have nothing to say about the subject. If you think it's discrimination to say that non-scientific stuff is non-scientific, then there's no reasoning with you. You don't even understand what the word science means apparently.

 

[IisJustMe]

I don't even know how to start answering to this one.

You missed it. That's not the "big lie." The "big lie" is the claim there is consensus among "experts" regarding anthropogenic global warming. Sorry if it was my wording that did not make that clear to you.