The truth of Global Warming

[Catawba]

Your experts are not medical experts. Look at the windmills built in the last year on I 65 in Indiana they are on farms close to houses. No problem is solved.

And medical doctors are not experts on sound. If they are bothered by the wind turbines, I suggest they move and if the claim of the doctor turns out to be true, they can sue for damages.

It is touching that you have such great concern over the unproven effect of living in close proximity to wind farms based on unconfirmed science, yet none for the health dangers of AGW for which there is decades of scientific consensus. :roll:

I don't suppose you see the irony in that at all do you?

 

[BmanMcfly]

You are opposed to improved economy, jobs and a stable climate. Got it!

Are you able to defend this position???

1 - How does giving up oil improve the economy?
2 - Can you explain how this will be achieved?
3 - Can you offer a precedence where such an activity offered a verifiable economic improvement??
4 - Can you tell me a 'green job' that wouldn't ultimately replace already existing jobs, if not several jobs lost for the one gain? If so can you offer a precedence of this working?
5 - How do you intend to maintain the climate at the ideal temperature using only CO2??? (Unless you're talking about domed cities I don't quite see this as feasible)

 

[Catawba]

Are you able to defend this position???

1 - How does giving up oil improve the economy?
2 - Can you explain how this will be achieved?
3 - Can you offer a precedence where such an activity offered a verifiable economic improvement??
4 - Can you tell me a 'green job' that wouldn't ultimately replace already existing jobs, if not several jobs lost for the one gain? If so can you offer a precedence of this working?
5 - How do you intend to maintain the climate at the ideal temperature using only CO2??? (Unless you're talking about domed cities I don't quite see this as feasible)

1. Every year oil gets more expensive, we are spending approx. $6 per gallon presently when you add in the cost of the ME wars necessary keep our addiction satisfied in the future. We spend hundreds of billions in the ME annually that could be invested in this country. And that doesn't even count the failures our economy will experience from the future affects of AGW.

2. We need, as quickly as possible, to transition to renewable energy, increase efficiency including the CAFE standards, provide tax credits for R&D and building with alternative energy. Basically, pick up where we left off before Reagan scrapped these programs and said to party like it was 1954.

3. Yes, we've faced the same situation every year since 1971 when we passed peak oil in this country. We have just been too ignorant to act on it for almost 40 years and counting now.

4. All jobs that rely on fossil fuels are in jeopardy in the future due to the ever increasing cost of a diminishing resource. If there is to be a future economy, transitioning to renewables is not an option.

5. I haven't heard of anyone suggesting we maintain the temperature using only CO2. What the scientists have advocated is to lower our CO2 output by burning less fossil fuels and stop cutting down rainforests that can sequester some of the CO2, in hopes of averting the Global warming tipping point, at which point it is too late to act and we have condemned future generation to a grim existence.


Of course none of this will matter to you because you have chosen to keep your mind closed regarding the scientific consensus of both AGW and Peak oil.

 

[iangb]

Every time ptif talks about noisy windmills taking up farmland, I refer him to the UK's solution:

 

[Gill]

And medical doctors are not experts on sound. If they are bothered by the wind turbines, I suggest they move and if the claim of the doctor turns out to be true, they can sue for damages.

Ever heard of an otologist ??? :roll:

It is touching that you have such great concern over the unproven effect of living in close proximity to wind farms based on unconfirmed science, yet none for the health dangers of AGW for which there is decades of scientific consensus. :roll:

I don't suppose you see the irony in that at all do you?

The Kennedys must have thought there was some effect because surely they wouldn't have objected to the wind farm near their house simply because they thought it would spoil their view.

 

[Gill]

1. Every year oil gets more expensive, we are spending approx. $6 per gallon presently when you add in the cost of the ME wars necessary keep our addiction satisfied in the future. We spend hundreds of billions in the ME annually that could be invested in this country. And that doesn't even count the failures our economy will experience from the future affects of AGW.

Do you have any idea where we get our oil ????

Hint: A very small percentage comes from the middle east.

 

[Gill]

You need to do some more reading. We are doing 2% now. And last time I looked China is bigger than the US and they are now leading the world in alternative technology. You will also learn, if you actually read, that we produce more CO2 than China. Do a little research before you start popping out posts that show ignorance of the subject.

Your the one that needs to do more reading.....

United States electrical production from:

wind: 35.2 gw
solar: 12 gw

China's electrical production from:

wind: 26 gw
solar: 1 gw

 

[Catawba]

Do you have any idea where we get our oil ????

Hint: A very small percentage comes from the middle east.

Yep, that was what the Iraq war sought to fix. See the Cheney's ETF prior to our invasion and occupation of Iraq. The oil executives state that a more stable government needs to be put in place in Iraq that would end the 35 year lock out of Western oil in Iraq. They further state the politicians statements that we can domestically drill our way out of this problem is just not true.

It was all about readmitting Western oil to the 2nd largest, most pure, and most easily accessible oil reserves on the planet.

 

[Gill]

Yep, that was what the Iraq war sought to fix. See the Cheney's ETF prior to our invasion and occupation of Iraq. The oil executives state that a more stable government needs to be put in place in Iraq that would end the 35 year lock out of Western oil in Iraq. They further state the politicians statements that we can domestically drill our way out of this problem is just not true.

It was all about readmitting Western oil to the 2nd largest, most pure, and most easily accessible oil reserves on the planet.

Why would we need Iraq's oil if we already get all we need from other countries in North America and from our own production ????

By the way, great job at not attempting to address my post.

 

[Catawba]

Your the one that needs to do more reading.....

United States electrical production from:

wind: 35.2 gw
solar: 12 gw

China's electrical production from:

wind: 26 gw
solar: 1 gw

Now reread my quote you posted and you will see that I said that China was leading the world in alternative technology[/B, I didn't say they were producing more that us.

"Although the Chinese lead in investment by a significant margin, the real story here is investment as a percentage of GDP. As a gauge of relative importance, it is clear that the Chinese place a significant premium on renewable energy investment compared with other countries."
China leads the world in renewable energy investment | Tableau Software

 

[Gill]

Now reread my quote you posted and you will see that I said that China was leading the world in alternative technology[/B, I didn't say they were producing more that us.

"Although the Chinese lead in investment by a significant margin, the real story here is investment as a percentage of GDP. As a gauge of relative importance, it is clear that the Chinese place a significant premium on renewable energy investment compared with other countries."
China leads the world in renewable energy investment | Tableau Software

You have a short memory. Here's the thread of posts leading to your's that I quoted:

You need to look at what other countries are doing to understand the potential, the US is falling behind.

"The huge success of this renewable power source – wind farm technology accounts for one-fifth of total electricity generated in Denmark – is attributed to a streamlining of administration between government and grid providers, including a deal which allows the general public to purchase shares in wind farms and turbines built near their communities.

Will not work here we are much bigger than Denmark from reports I have seen the best we could hope for nationally would be 2%.

You need to do some more reading. We are doing 2% now. And last time I looked China is bigger than the US and they are now leading the world in alternative technology. You will also learn, if you actually read, that we produce more CO2 than China. Do a little research before you start popping out posts that show ignorance of the subject.

As you can see, the original comment was that Denmark electrical generation was 20%, while ours is only 2%. Obviously, the 2% refers to electrical generation, NOT component manufacture.

And.......... China IS the world's largest emitter of CO2.

China: 22.3 mt
U.S.: 19.9 mt

 

[Catawba]

Why would we need Iraq's oil if we already get all we need from other countries in North America and from our own production ????

By the way, great job at not attempting to address my post.

I addressed your post by showing you the Iraq war wasn't about where we get our oil today, it was to expand our "future" availability of affordable oil as the world approaches peak oil, and I provided the source for my response, Cheney's ETF.

 

[Catawba]

As you can see, the original comment was that Denmark electrical generation was 20%, while ours is only 2%. Obviously, the 2% refers to electrical generation, NOT component manufacture.

You have strung together several statements talking about different things and tried to construe they are all talking about the same thing.

And.......... China IS the world's largest emitter of CO2.

China: 22.3 mt
U.S.: 19.9 mt

Well what do you know, you are right with this statement! I had missed that China had passed us as the top CO2 emitter. Kudos!

 

[Catawba]

Why would we need Iraq's oil if we already get all we need from other countries in North America and from our own production ????

Earlier I referenced Cheney's ETF Report where they spell out a plan to deal with Peak oil in the world. Previously, you have denied the concept of peak oil so I have provided further authoritative support for Peak Oil and what it will mean.

Unless you consider the US military to also be part of the world wide conspiracy, I am interested in your response to their warning regarding peak oil:

"The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.

The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel.

"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.

It adds: "While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India."

The US military says its views cannot be taken as US government policy but admits they are meant to provide the Joint Forces with "an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concept to guide out future force developments."

The warning is the latest in a series from around the world that has turned peak oil – the moment when demand exceeds supply – from a distant threat to a more immediate risk."
US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015 | Business | The Guardian

 

[BmanMcfly]

1. Every year oil gets more expensive,

Well, the price is dependent mainly on 'supply and demand'... by supply I mean REFINED supply. When was the last time a refinery was built in north america? So, the price has ONLY gone up because of an increased DEMAND on a stable supply. The most recent increases since the prices bottomed out around 60$ / barrel, well, it STILL COSTS 60$ / barrel for oil... I know you're going to tell me "no, Bman, it's over 80$ / barrel." Which is correct, it now costs 89$ to get 60$ worth of oil... aka, the reason the price has been rising has more to do with dollar devaluation then it does in an increase in cost.

we are spending approx. $6 per gallon presently when you add in the cost of the ME wars necessary keep our addiction satisfied in the future.

If you're talking about Iraq, that war actually SHUT OFF the majority of oil production in that country, and was a factor in why the price jumped to nearly 150$ / barrel.

Don't forget; oil is run by a CARTEL... and the reality is because they control the supply (ie refineries) they can effectively demand the price that they want. Oh, and we could stop those wars in the middle east over control of oil TODAY, reopen Alaska to drilling and effectively replace that oil.

We spend hundreds of billions in the ME annually that could be invested in this country.

Again, I gotta point you to what the movers and shakers of the world are saying... the problem is NOT that we don't have the money to food, clothe and shelter every human on earth, it's that these humanitarian ventures do NOT COST ENOUGH to be viable. There's vastly more PROFITS to be made through war then there EVER will be through peace.

Though, I do agree with you.

And that doesn't even count the failures our economy will experience from the future affects of AGW.

The economy is ALREADY on the verge of failure... and that's a side issue, but...
Job Losses From Obama Green Stimulus Foreseen in Spanish Study - Bloomberg

2. We need, as quickly as possible, to transition to renewable energy, increase efficiency including the CAFE standards, provide tax credits for R&D and building with alternative energy. Basically, pick up where we left off before Reagan scrapped these programs and said to party like it was 1954.

Individually, yes, it's nothing but a good thing to :
- INstall solar panelling
- use energy efficient appliances
- Drive a hybrid
- install geothermal heating
- etc...

BUT : because these artificially created 'green jobs' actually COST JOBS that just proves that this switch over is still not economically viable, and that's why every green venture ever proposed (beyond tax breaks for investing in energy efficiency) has been abject failure. Just look at the untold deaths from starvation caused by ethanols.

3. Yes, we've faced the same situation every year since 1971 when we passed peak oil in this country. We have just been too ignorant to act on it for almost 40 years and counting now.

Umm... I think you misunderstood the question...

I was asking if you could offer a precedence where acting on 'green initiatives' has generated economic growth, since that seems to be a premise you're working on...

4. All jobs that rely on fossil fuels are in jeopardy in the future due to the ever increasing cost of a diminishing resource. If there is to be a future economy, transitioning to renewables is not an option.

It'd be a bit more accurate to say 'all jobs' are in jeopardy if we ran out of oil... though I haven't specifically sourced this, you could add that because of robotics and automation among other similar advancements, those same elites have discussions that have been published (not publicized) as to whether in the future, since there isn't the NEED for a fraction of the people to have work, there have been debates as to whether it's preferable to have a society that is just 'entertained' to death, or whether its preferable to reduce human numbers so that everyone alive could have a job and be productive in society... the results, as it's been written is to "get rid of those useless eaters".

That said... you'll brush this off because it's my 'theory' that there are people like Bill Gates and Ted Turner getting together with other leaders of industry, politics and academia that might be able to create change in society, and are actively making plans for society that stretch out sometimes as far as 50 years into the future.

5. I haven't heard of anyone suggesting we maintain the temperature using only CO2. What the scientists have advocated is to lower our CO2 output by burning less fossil fuels and stop cutting down rainforests that can sequester some of the CO2, in hopes of averting the Global warming tipping point, at which point it is too late to act and we have condemned future generation to a grim existence.

You said 'stable climate'... and since you also claim that "Co2 drives climate" I was hoping that you'd have something concrete where you could say "ok, if we keep CO2 at X ppm we can maintain the climate at a stable temperature indefinately."

I was hoping you'd realize how asinine it is to claim that CO2 drives climate when you really think about this, but you've clearly fallen prey to this propaganda.a


Of course none of this will matter to you because you have chosen to keep your mind closed regarding the scientific consensus of both AGW and Peak oil.[/QUOTE]

 

[drz-400]

Do you have any idea where we get our oil ????

Hint: A very small percentage comes from the middle east.

I think 11% of our crude oil is imported from the middle east region.

 

[drz-400]

I addressed your post by showing you the Iraq war wasn't about where we get our oil today, it was to expand our "future" availability of affordable oil as the world approaches peak oil, and I provided the source for my response, Cheney's ETF.

Iraq is still a part of OPEC, we did not gain any control over the mid east oil production from the iraq war.

 

[ptif219]

And medical doctors are not experts on sound. If they are bothered by the wind turbines, I suggest they move and if the claim of the doctor turns out to be true, they can sue for damages.

It is touching that you have such great concern over the unproven effect of living in close proximity to wind farms based on unconfirmed science, yet none for the health dangers of AGW for which there is decades of scientific consensus. :roll:

I don't suppose you see the irony in that at all do you?

So don't shut down the source but make the people leave their home. So GW is more important than peoples rights.

 

[Catawba]

Well, the price is dependent mainly on 'supply and demand'... by supply I mean REFINED supply.

Yep, as the world's demand gets closer to exceeding the supply the costs go up. See the ETF Report by the oil industry and the warning by the military.

If you're talking about Iraq, that war actually SHUT OFF the majority of oil production in that country, and was a factor in why the price jumped to nearly 150$ / barrel.

Its all about the future my friend. Oil executives know that with increased investment and development, Iraq will be the last place on the planet to run out of oil. Before the Iraq war, Western oil had been locked out of Iraq for 35 years, now we have an armed occupation propping up a government we helped set up there to assure we are never locked out in the future.

Don't forget; oil is run by a CARTEL... and the reality is because they control the supply (ie refineries) they can effectively demand the price that they want. Oh, and we could stop those wars in the middle east over control of oil TODAY, reopen Alaska to drilling and effectively replace that oil.

Well you see, that's just it, the Iraqi government was bucking the cartel and not playing ball as far as pricing and withholding oil. The oil companies have already stated in the ETF report that we can't internally drill our way out of our problem, we haven't that capability since 1971.

Again, I gotta point you to what the movers and shakers of the world are saying... the problem is NOT that we don't have the money to food, clothe and shelter every human on earth, it's that these humanitarian ventures do NOT COST ENOUGH to be viable. There's vastly more PROFITS to be made through war then there EVER will be through peace. Though, I do agree with you.

Not sure how that is a response to my statement that - "We spend hundreds of billions in the ME annually that could be invested in this country." But I'm glad you agree.

Individually, yes, it's nothing but a good thing to :
- INstall solar panelling
- use energy efficient appliances
- Drive a hybrid
- install geothermal heating
- etc...

All these are great but they are not enough. See the warning from the military.

BUT : because these artificially created 'green jobs' actually COST JOBS that just proves that this switch over is still not economically viable, and that's why every green venture ever proposed (beyond tax breaks for investing in energy efficiency) has been abject failure. Just look at the untold deaths from starvation caused by ethanols.

You have to look at the big picture. How will our economy do in the future if we continue to base it on a diminishing resource without allowing ourselves the time to transition to alternative fuels? For example, what do you think $10 a gallon gas (without an alternative) would do to our economy?

I was asking if you could offer a precedence where acting on 'green initiatives' has generated economic growth, since that seems to be a premise you're working on...

Again you are looking at short-term gain versus long term viability. Again, I ask you what do you think $10 a gallon gas (without an alternative) would do to our economy?

It'd be a bit more accurate to say 'all jobs' are in jeopardy if we ran out of oil...

Now you are getting it!

though I haven't specifically sourced this, you could add that because of robotics and automation among other similar advancements

I haven't read where the military has warned us about robotics and automation. Link please.

That said... you'll brush this off because it's my 'theory' that there are people like Bill Gates and Ted Turner getting together with other leaders of industry, politics and academia that might be able to create change in society, and are actively making plans for society that stretch out sometimes as far as 50 years into the future.

And how did they get the military to join their conspiracy?

You said 'stable climate'... and since you also claim that "Co2 drives climate" I was hoping that you'd have something concrete where you could say "ok, if we keep CO2 at X ppm we can maintain the climate at a stable temperature indefinately."

Nope, haven't said that at all. Right now, it looks like the best we can hope for is to reduce our output of CO2 in time to prevent the GW from reaching the tipping point. Some even think we have already passed that point.

I was hoping you'd realize how asinine it is to claim that CO2 drives climate when you really think about this, but you've clearly fallen prey to this propaganda.a

I will leave it to others to decide which point of view is reasonable and which is asinine.

 

[ptif219]

Every time ptif talks about noisy windmills taking up farmland, I refer him to the UK's solution:

I do not live in UK

Indiana

Indiana Windmills | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Texas

pictures of wind turbines in Texas - Google Search

Oklahoma

Wind Turbines in Oklahoma | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[Catawba]

Iraq is still a part of OPEC, we did not gain any control over the mid east oil production from the iraq war.

Western oil had been locked out of Iraq for 35 years prior to our invasion, occupation, and regime change. Now, they are not.

 

[Catawba]

So don't shut down the source but make the people leave their home. So GW is more important than peoples rights.

This is no where near the research to establish this as fact, as there has been with AGW which will affect everyone on the planet.

 

[ptif219]

Earlier I referenced Cheney's ETF Report where they spell out a plan to deal with Peak oil in the world. Previously, you have denied the concept of peak oil so I have provided further authoritative support for Peak Oil and what it will mean.

Unless you consider the US military to also be part of the world wide conspiracy, I am interested in your response to their warning regarding peak oil:

"The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.

The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel.

"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.

It adds: "While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India."

The US military says its views cannot be taken as US government policy but admits they are meant to provide the Joint Forces with "an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concept to guide out future force developments."

The warning is the latest in a series from around the world that has turned peak oil – the moment when demand exceeds supply – from a distant threat to a more immediate risk."
US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015 | Business | The Guardian

So now the US Military are experts on oil?

 

[ptif219]

This is no where near the research to establish this as fact, as there has been with AGW which will affect everyone on the planet.

Yet you are acting like it is fact. Even AGW is full of lies and deceptions which you try to justify

 

[Catawba]

Yet you are acting like it is fact. Even AGW is full of lies and deceptions which you try to justify

If there are, you have yet to prove any of them. Thanks, but I'll go with the world wide scientific consensus.