Ex-heads of EPA blast Bush on global warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Manedwolf said:
Tinfoil hat time!
Not at all. If you notice, the Kyoto agreement called for the most industrialized nations (of which the US led the pack by far) to curb emissions, while the "emerging nations" (India, China, et. al.) were allowed to pollute unfettered. It was really a global weath redistribution scheme.

If Kyoto was REALLY all about curbing emissions, it would have called for such to be done uniformly across ALL countries worldwide.

Finally, the amount of impact Kyoto would have had on total greenhouse gas emissions (if FULLY applied, which is has not been and will not be) was well under a 10% reduction, and was more about perceptions of "doing something" than about actually effecting change.
 
Manedwolf, Crichton merely builds on Bjorn Lomborg's "Skeptical Environmentalist", which book I strongly recommend to you.

Lomborg is an ex-GreenPeace statistician.

As far as Kyoto and CO2, I can but note that among the proponents are governments whose countries rank among the highest in generation of electricity via nuclear power. Even so, some of those countries have discovered that for the signatories, Kyoto is a bad deal.

Art
 
Basing any opinion on that novel is like basing your ideas of proper tactical procedure and world military incursion allowability on a Clive Cussler or Dale Brown novel, or your idea of how spies operate on an Ian Fleming "Bond" novel.

It's FICTION. He is a writer of pull-ideas-out-of-posterior FICTION! Like, oh, you know, cloning dinosaurs in a couple of years from a mosquito in amber, SAME AUTHOR?

Have you read the book? I mean really. And so there is no possibility that someone could, say, research a subject thoroughly, come to a logical conclusion and decide that the best way to present an, otherwise, extremely boring and confusing subject is via a fictional novel. Interesting perspective. Quite a few historical novelists I need to discard immediately.:banghead:
 
Here's the thing.

While models certainly cast a lot of doubt on the religious fervor that often surrounds global warming, let's say for the sake of discussion that it's the worst-case scenario being touted by the environuts.

The same people have long been saying that we'd RUN OUT of fossil fuels! Since they're non-renewable, that's not far-fetched, though of course we can argue over how much we have left.

If that is true, then what's the difference? Burn them up, no more fuel, no more global warming. There's no logical reason to artificially limit use, since, as fossil fuel becomes scarce, prices will rise exponentially.

This will make existing alternatives economically viable, and speed the development of others. It will also force some tough decisions that we're too weak to make right now. E.g., France uses pebble reactors and large-scale nuclear power generation. We don't, mainly due to trendy anti-nuke politics in the '70s, carried forward by the baby boomers who dominate the political process right now. If it comes to sitting in the dark and getting really cold, even the hippies will prefer nuclear power, especially the safer reactors that now exist.

So, the only reason to worry about global warming (100-year predictions? Come on!) is if we think that fossil fuels will NEVER become scarce, no matter how fast we burn them. Do you believe that?
 
So, the only reason to worry about global warming (100-year predictions? Come on!) is if we think that fossil fuels will NEVER become scarce, no matter how fast we burn them. Do you believe that?

Fossil fuels? Please remember that even that phrase is just a theory.

In any case, the above statement reminded me of a college project that I once heard of so I went digging on the internet (yes, I am a geek, thank you). The idea was to figure out how much oil has ever been drilled since we began using it (figure was easily found) and, using standard math calculations, figure out how deep a one mile by one mile hole would have to be to hold all of the oil that has ever come out of the ground. I just spent the last hour doing the calcuations (geek? yes. Math wiz? not even close) and the results were pretty close to what I remember hearing in the original experiment.

Now for the bonus section: describe about what size this hole would represent on a standard sized globe. When you look at it from this perspective, it would certainly seem to the average thinking person that the notion that we are running out of 'fossil fuels' slightly unbelievable.
 
I guess the whole bird flu panic didn't pan out, so they now have to resurrect the global warming crap to keep the gullible on the edges of their seats.:rolleyes:
 
I guess the whole bird flu panic didn't pan out, so they now have to resurrect the global warming crap to keep the gullible on the edges of their seats.

Without fear, ignorance, superstition, hatred, envy, racism, and lots more fear, there's be no chance whatever for socialism.
 
From a review of State of Fear:

It is interesting to read because Crichton confuses his readers with his constant point-counterpoint propositions regarding the legitimacy of global warming. He does, however, provide a little "author's note" regarding the science of the issue along with an overwhelmingly long list of sources and citations, so if you're skeptical of Crichton's ideas regarding this "no-brainer" environment issue, he has allowed you to "go see for yourself".

The “list of sources" is a 32 page bibliography of references used in the story, plus an appendix explaining the source of data used in the temperature warming graphs.

There is an interesting caveat in the appendix:

Note: Shortly after the hardcover publication of this book, GISS changed its website to show less data. The station data no longer goes back before 1880, and thus heightens the appearance of a steady rise in temperature.

Fear not; there are tons of other references in the book. The socialists won’t be able to suppress them all.

You can’t stop the signal.
 
Kyoto isn't worth a damn in reducing emissions. How can you make the US, Europe and Japan make major and expensive expenditures to cut emissions and allow China, India and other thrid world countries to do as they please? Pure and simple it is an agreement for the transfer of wealth, maybe not directly but in the long run. And it is based on highly dubious so-called scientific studies.

As many scientist claiming man-made global warming is occuring, just as many reputable scientist claim that it is not or that if it is, it's a naturally occuring cycle of the earths weather. If it is the later are we so arrogant to presume we can now control the weather cycles of the earth?

Sound conservation practices are fine and desired but radical environmentalism is every bit as dangerous as Marxist-Lenninist Communism.
 
yeah, right pollution is a myth.

it is ok to skateboard in the toxic water that pools up in wintertime at the bottom of the bowls.
this quote describes what we put up with every winter
"This is Ed Murphy in Berkeley. Yes, this will confirm the skatepark is closed . We had ground water which contained hexovalent chromium [aka CR6] leaking into the park. It was a high enough level of CR6 that it posed a potential danger to users. Closed pending studies. Risk assessment should be completed in the next couple of weeks. If risk level is low, we'll open the park. If it's not, we'll have to keep it closed until we can come up w/ a way to keep the water out."

the air has not been turned brown around any cities

global warming or not, there is NO reason to try and save any part of the environment- after all when we all live in a glass bubble, oxygen supplied by machines, theyll let us all have guns and shoot all we want right?

true, nations like China and India rapidly undo whatever we do to help. but is that a fair excuse for destroying our planet?

sounds a little like "his mommy lets him do it" to me.

recycling, cutting emissions, reducing use, it is all for nothing , just a crock.

and excessive use of fossil fuels, ignoring the possible effects- who does that really help?
BIG OIL

funny how all this talk and everyone sides with the richest industry in the world.

the dancing bear has become accustomed to his chains
 
thorn726 said:
yeah, right pollution is a myth.

..........

the dancing bear has become accustomed to his chains

I think you are missing the point. No one is saying that unfettered pollution is good.

What some (including me) are saying is that, if the problem (that Kyoto claims to address) is as bad as some depict it, we should be applying the emission reduction policies UNIFORMLY ACROSS THE PLANET, (and not selectively as Kyoto is structured). To not do so is to contradict that the problem is as bad as depicted.

An adjuct issue here is that there is a significant body of evidence that even if humans were to cease creating "greenhouse" gases ALTOGETHER, IMMEDIATELY, the world temp would rise due to factors totally behind the direct control of humans. If that is in fact true, our actions towards changing emissions become an exercise in futility.
 
Last edited:
we should be applying the emission reduction policies UNIFORMLY ACROSS THE PLANET. To not do so to to contradict that the problem is as bad as depicted.

true, nations like China and India rapidly undo whatever we do to help. but is that a fair excuse for destroying our planet?

sounds a little like "his mommy lets him do it" to me.

the bottom line of most of these posts is "i shouldnt have to worry about pollution, period"

and i dont like it
 
Terror for the sake of terror - socialism's life blood

Without fear, ignorance, superstition, hatred, envy, racism, and lots more fear, there's be no chance whatever for socialism.
Exactly. Not only is socialism being pimped here in the U.S., it is being pimped in every nation around the world that is not yet under socialist rule.

In order to survive and grow, socialism needs three things -
1: Horrific, global disasters - real or imaginary.
2: Helpless, terrified masses of sheeple.
3: Enlightened "experts" with Ph.D's and/or bureaucratic titles and power to save the helpless, terrified masses.

There's the recipie for saving the world, according to socialism: Rule by the "experts" who have had conferred upon them unlimited power and zero accountability by submissive, obedient masses of terrified sheeple.

I'll take my chances with global warming, bird flu, and giant meteroite attacks on my own, thanks...
 
1. Global warming is a direct result of variations in solar output.

2. Kyoto = joke. No impact to the biggest land rapists and polluters of the upcomming century which are China, India and Brazil.

3. If a politician is going to get bashed over environmental issues, why doesn't this group bash Senator Edward Kennedy for opposing the clean energy, non-obtrusive to wildlife, 130-turbine Nantucket Sound wind farm?

4. Everyone talks with no action because the only current permanent solution to pulling your energy needs from a hydrocarbon base is nuclear. Nobody in the United States wants nuclear. We can't even lauch a Pluto probe (contining a minuscule amount of plutonium for power) without protesters outside the fence of Cape Canaveral. Thus - like the dinosaurs before us, the United States will doom itself to eventual energy extinction, replacing oil with dependence on those who are investing in nuclear technology today (Japan, France - perhaps China). And you think you are paying a heavy political price today for oil???? Just wait.
 
If a politician is going to get bashed over environmental issues, why doesn't this group bash Senator Edward Kennedy for opposing the clean energy, non-obtrusive to wildlife, 130-turbine Nantucket Sound wind farm?
Because he is a Democrat and therefore can do no wrong?
the United States will doom itself to eventual energy extinction, replacing oil with dependence on those who are investing in nuclear technology today (Japan, France - perhaps China). And you think you are paying a heavy political price today for oil???? Just wait.
It's all part of the plan - weaken the United States, bring it to its knees, global socialism takes a huge step forward.

There's a reason all the anti-nuclear protestors are leftist/socialist/democratic.
 
Sorry, Thorn, but 'the bottom line of most of these posts is "i shouldnt have to worry about pollution, period"' is a very distorted view of what people are saying in this thread. Completely erroneous conclusion.

Further, note that the outcries against nuclear power have led directly to the amount of electricity generated by burning hydrocarbons--which create the CO2 that is the focus of Kyoto.

And it's Kyoto that is the focus of this thread, not other problems with pollutants. To bring up those irrelevant issues is drifting away from the subject of THIS thread.
\
Were we to become a signatory to the Kyoto Accords, we would be forced to reduce our output of electricity. That means a loss of jobs. That's inescapable. Were we to institute controls on travel, that would also mean a large loss of jobs. I can easily see a jobless rate in excess of 15% within a very few years. The Great Depression saw a rate of roughly 25%.

The social impacts would then lead to more Draconian laws from Congress, probably including a resumption of anti-gun legislation in the face of what I expect to be a rise in crime rates.

And China and India would continue to be the world's worst polluters...

Art
 
Mars

Given the fact that the polar ice caps are receding on Mars would lead logical thinkers to the conclusion that the phenonenon of "global warming" is pretty much out of mankind's reach.

I thought it was pretty cool how Al Gore and his contingent arrived at the Kyoto conference in air conditioned SUV's.

"All animals are created equal. But some animals are more equal than others."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top