Green Nonsense

Might as well be broken, the premise already is by the hyperbole. The world is clearly in trouble, but ohhhh pooor us, we just can't be bothered to do anything to take ourselves out of the problem. Nothing is too trival for the rightists, libertarians and Oil industry shills. It all soooo anti freedom.

Oh Please.

Like this quote: our most recent embarrassment, the enactment into law of “Standards” that will require most flat panel televisions sold in the State to be 33% “more efficient” by 2011 and 50% more-so by 2013.

Wow, as a Californian, I am just terribly embarrassed that we might be 50% more efficient in three years.
(Maybe I wouldn't be if it were 75%.)

Another quote: Recent headlines have more than half the country’s “serious” geologists still claiming there is no correlation between Co2 gas emissions and a melting iceberg.

What, from the Exxon journal of Infinite Lies? From the Cato Institute spewing of weekly ignorance? The New York Post? Or from what other corporate whore? This is an absolutely fraudulent statement that I would demand documentation of, and then research of the source. (I might agree if they were saying it was really from methane and other greenhouse gases - lets just lay the argument on humans vs. nature - which has been disproved over and over and over).

Then there is this loopy explanation of light does not come from basic energy. Huh? Try to explain that in terms of the physics please. Beyond other energy used (circuitry) , how does light not parallel energy consumed.

So this horrifyingly stupid rulling by California....well maybe not so, as the industry is already responding on top of what they already have done, to making TV's even more efficient. The last 19" one I bought had a choice of backlighting to home or store mode in the auto setup. Wow, it was just brutal to have to make that decision.

And you might as well sit down and expect a LOT more of this, as the problem is severly real. Just read a bit, look at the ice a bit. Think a bit.

Meanwhile, no one is paying much attention - or enough to truly scream about the real problem out there - a broken down banking system that is destroying our economy by refusing loans across the board and setting people up for forclosure and then refusing loan modifications. High criminal behavior if you ask me. TV efficiency is nothing more than dandilion fluff in the wind in comparison to the end of our economy.

Wow! That was quite a tirade...feel better? The planet is definitely warming due to CO2 - every time we exhale we add to the problem. PLEASE -EVERYONE STOP BREATHING - YOU ARE EMITTING POLLUTANTS!!!!! Unbelievable...educate yourself

http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/1 ... ution.html

The article "Green Nonsense" hit the nail on the head. What is going to happen is that most Big Screen Gas Plasma TVs will not match the CEC requirement. Manufacturers will be forced to lower the brightness of their sets, so California TVs won't be as good as the other states. It looks like we are going to be stuck with darker sets and/or more expensive technology.

This is not unlike their push to get rid of analog power supplies and have them replaced with more expensive switching power supplies.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/papers/2005-03-03_WILSON.PDF

Yes, switching supplies consume less energy, but the difference may be too small to make up for the difference in the cost of the supply.


By the way, if one just searches "ClimateGate" on YouTube or any web search engine, you'll see that the CO2 theory of global warming is not as rock solid as they want you to believe.

Man made global warming has not been conclusively proven. It must be our CO2 emissions that is causing all the other planets in our solar system to become warmer just like Earth rather than the sun and sun spots... or just recently the lack there of creating a cooling trend...

Alfred said it best in one of his replies, this is a tempest in a tea pot. Considering the outcome I can’t help but think the authors of the bill contacted manufacturers or looked at current specs to pass a draconian sounding bill of propaganda that doesn’t require any more efficiency than what is already being provided. Wow, what an empty result. As for the 2014 requirements I think they already know manufacturers will be able to meet that based on future designs being developed now. Another empty result to make the man made global warming religion feel good.

This legislation from the socialist republic of California is nothing more than political propaganda used primarily as precedence to perpetuate the religion of man made global warming. Progressive liberals get to pat themselves on the back, and along with the media and liberal politicians, wave this legislation in everybodies face as more proof that man made global warming must be true or all these smart people would not have voted for it.

The reality is this is nothing more than a power problem caused by the negligence of the California legislature of years past. Oh, I forgot, government is good and is never the cause of the problem regardless of the fact that our founding fathers knew government royally sucked and tried real hard to create a new government that would suck as little as possible. Here we are over 200 years later celebrating how big and awesome ours has become... Good grief...

I know who John Galt is and the rest of that story which parallels what is happening on this planet and in this country to a frightening level.

My heart felt thanks to all those who showed up to counter comrade Steve on the other articles.

If there is a hell for sinning liars and cheats then Al Gore will get that prize too along with the rest of his global warming financial comrades of wealth drooling over the passage of our cap and trade bill!

OK, this is a bit off topic, but for those who like seeing Big Al put foot in mouth....

Gore: Polar ice may vanish in 5-7 years: Monday, December 14, 2009
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/ap_ ... imate_gore


Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 (The climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 956783.ece

So simple a 6th grader can figure it out (with a little excel help from Dad).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04

Richard S. Lindzen also claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking. He is widely thought of as a contrarian.

Youtube does not seem to be a valid Scientific community.

Yes, everyone knows Gore tweaked the numbers, that doesn't invalidate everything he said.

There is a scientific consensus that global climate change is real and man made. Yes there are skeptics and contrarians, some of them notable.
Who's Who on Inhofe's List of 400 Global Warming Deniers
Inhofe's "scientists" include economists, the retired, TV weathermen, mathematicians, amateurs and industry spokespeople:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-scientists-46011008

No it has not been proven as scientific "fact", at least not nearly as much as evolution and gravity. So should we do nothing about it? Should we allow smoking in public areas because there are those scientists that don't think it has been 100% proven to cause lung cancer? Should we allow guns in schools because not everyone who has taken a gun to a school has shot someone?

And really? Calling Steve "comrade"? Is that intellectual discourse or childish name calling because you don't have the brains or the stones to look into the information that is contrary to your position and actually risk thinking about your position? Maybe it is not as bad as some of us think it could be. Are you willing to risk it? Or is it that you just don't care?

Thank you tsteves, at least there is one other thinking person willing to step forward.

For the rest of you, you and your similarly ignorant Americans sit and selfishly stew, as virtually the entire rest of the world is trying to work on this problem. You, for some inexplicable reason, continuously spew every single disproved suggestion over and over and over. I did not look at the links, I don't have to anymore, because ignorance and immature thinking just begets the same.

Look at the ice. There is really no more to consider if that is considered in its entirety. And it just does not matter if it purely man made CO2, but it is not nature, and it will kill the human species - if we don't do it all alone in our compulsive breeding to oblivion.

Morning ALL . . .

We're in danger of taking this very useful & productive HDTV Forum & sadly moving it into a rather pointless ".. Save-The-Planet / P.C. soap box ..", instead ?


.. Consider taking Vacation Trip of say .. a couple months visiting Greater China .. going from Beijing & it's not-visible Great Wall ... ending up eventually on the 1,200 mile Grand Canal / Yangtze River & even Hong Kong ... we did / have.

This Nation already IS by far the greatest polluter on Planet Earth, currently digging out & burning well over 50% of all the coal used today & dumping everything / anything straight into their waterways, totally w/o treatment.

And, it fully-plans to increase this level or % far more in the next decade, w/o any worries whatever as to .. what .. the consequence might be.

Forget what meager effects the entire remainder of the civilized population may or may not attempt .... it will not matter one iota compared to the bleak devastation caused from China's current activity and planned actions!

Just .. relax .. and enjoy what there is left / available NOW - - - certainly, including our 58" - 60" + plasma sets!

eli

eli....sadly I could not aggree more. I too have been to China and seen the dark clouds spewing forth...and if we can aggree that burning coal is either dirty or a greenhouse gas polluter - China is hugely contributing to the problem and it sure seems we have no chance.

To answer the articles put forth...mbownman's link refers to an article about how life supporting CO2 is, that it is not a pollutant. So is water, till it is over your head. It is not said to be a toxic gas - it is a greenhouse gas. If I have it correctly, it was found to be so about 150 years ago. As for low CO2 now vs. world history. Absolutely, but when it was very high, the planet could not support much of the animal, and non of the human life we have now. The core microbe (some tiny life form) that consumes CO2 and converts it to Oxygen - the key part of plant life - developed, and over millions of years, it packed the carbon in to the ground and our planet became liveable. So that article is just a silly diversion that does not address the Greenhouse question at all.

As for the link about power supplies - so, some things cost more for benefit. You can ride a motorcycle on a freeway, or a car. The car cost lots more but you will more likely survive an accident in the car. E.g. disk brakes, airbags, crush zones etc. You have to take greenhouse gas as a cost of energy generation in order to do a cost benefit analysis. Solar generate the energy and other than the manufacturing of the panels, their is no benefit. Do it with coal and there is, and perhaps enough to be worth it when it is considered there are millions and millions of the bricks out there.

The link about Gore. I can't see what the point was. That Gore's precise words were slightly off - big deal. The key point here is that the problem is happening MUCH sooner than anyone predicted until very recently. So shoot them their models were too conservative. We still have the issue of water now absorbing heat and not reflecting light back off the planet. The artic has twice the warming. The only 'controversy' in the article is whethere the ice is mostly gone in summer in 5 or 10 years. But that is something that has not occurred for a very very long time (I think millions of years, but I am not sure).

I was intrigued with the Rural ground tempuratures being stable. I will have to research that more. But in no way does that change the world scientific view that encompasses the whole world, oceans, atmosphere, poles, ice trends, life form effects and so on. That the US might be the least affected being farily far north is only a point, not the complete picture.

That the ocean worldwide is getting hotter, is probably the most significant driver of climate change, but that is my opinion only.

The issue isn't whether we should reduce air pollution or even greenhouse gases. The issue is whether we should spend a gazillion dollars and take drastic steps to do it.

The only logical explanation (in my mind) is the simplest one - the sun. We know the sun's heat fluctuates and just think how your temp changes as you move closer to or away from a fire or as the fire dies down.

Look at the difference in heat between the equator and the poles. The difference has to be at least 80 degrees F, probably a lot more - due to nothing more than the difference in the way the sun's heat reaches the surface. And you want me to believe that a 1-2 degree change is because of some gas in the atmosphere and not due to a change in the sun's heat output?

> There is a scientific consensus that global climate change is real and man made.

I think it's only fair to point out that at one time there was a strong scientific consensus that the sun went around the Earth. Then along came some "denier" who had the gall of contradicting the consensus. Science is NOT about taking a vote by the scientists, it's about presenting the data, analysis, and seeing which theory best fits the observations.

Thus, science has to be open, transparent, and allow others to review the results. Unfortunately, the source data for the CRU was tossed and no one can verify it. The software the adjusts the numbers was studied and found to have an artificial adjustment to the numbers. As far as the NASA data, a scientist has been trying for 2 years to see the source data and now has to sue to get access to it. This type of hiding of the data is NOT real science.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... mate-data/

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936328.ece

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

Getting back to the topic that this thread was about, the CEC and TVs. The CEC is doing all sorts of stupid things that cause problems and bother people. Now the if one really wants to cut down on energy usage, switch from standard light bulbs to CFL bulbs. A single 100 watt bulb takes less than 25 watts with a CFL bulb; that's a 75+ watt savings per light bulb. Even just 4 lights, running 4 hours every night, results in a savings of 1.2 KWh per day. That's a lot more than any TV uses.


Bob Diaz

You can claim it is too expensive to act - act against a win-win on many fronts that also include reduction of greenhouse gases - but then you have simply said our lives are not worth it.

Regardless of the causes, the heating and the polluting and the exporting of our money are all issues. Buying a more efficient TV is not going to break the bank. Staying status quo ultimately will.

Remember that California has what is probably the most heavily utilized power grid in the country and the highest prices. There are many things we can do to reduce energy consumption although poorly worded the California limitation on TV set power consumption could easily be met if they'd just use power supplies that actually turn off. Remember those things are on 24 hours a day unless the power is turned off externally, or by unplugging. Although not much per individual, if every home in the nation (120 million according to the last census) converted incandescents to CFLs (an average of about 10 lights) that would be the equivalent of the output of about 2 power stations.

Two of the biggest energy wasters in existence are TV and Computer power supplies that are on all of the time. They may be switching supplies, but they don't need to be on all of the time. The power they use at idle with the TV off compared to the power the TV uses while on just might make up that power savings CA is going to require. My satellite receiver has to be on in the middle of the night to get updates. They even charge me extra if the phone line to it doesn't work, which it wouldn't with the power off. One of my large computers which has an 850 watt power supply and a 375 watt video card doesn't even have a switch on the power supply and the other 4 have switches that are unreachable. With 5 of those things even the power used when they are off adds up.

Now as for the Anthropogenic global warming which is way OT, news papers and netzines are not exactly reliable, or unbiased sources of information for science or politics. Go to the NOAA, NASA, or IPCC sites for reliable information. Another site with up-to-date news recommended by NOAA is http://arcserver4.iagt.org/climate1stop/ Don't use the actions of a couple of individuals to paint the whole of science.

In terms of per capita electricity use, California is the lowest on the list.

http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/electri ... _2005.html

IF California were near the top of the list, I could see the major push to lower our usage, but no other state is lower than California.



The problem is that the information from NOAA, NASA, and IPCC sites is that it may not be as reliable information as one thinks. The 1930s saw warmer temperatures than today, but those numbers were reduced, why? The year 1998 was the warmest year in the last 20 years, but now 1998 was changed and 2006 is tied with 1998 for the warmest year, why is the data changed? The middle ages saw temperatures higher than today, but once again the data is changed, why?

As I said before, the science has to be open for review, but it's not. Please see the link:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... mate-data/

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.

It's not unreasonable to demand that the data be open for all scientists to review the source data, the calculations, and reasons for these changes. "Thrust us" just doesn't cut it.


Bob Diaz

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the article from the Washington Times - a right wing rag of dubious credibility given it's extreme bias and essentially fundamentalist ownership.

Chris Horner is a lawyer, a gamer. He has no real credibility. He just speaks and in this reference sues, but neither means there is any basis to what he says or the lawsuit - harassment suites are common.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is yet another 'let corporate america run rampant with no accountability' appologist group. From their site:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a public interest group dedicated to free enterprise and limited government. We believe that the best solutions come from people making their own choices in a free marketplace, rather than government intervention. Since it was founded by Fred L. Smith, Jr. in 1984, CEI has grown to a team of over 40 policy experts and staff.

Yeah, like the banking system last fall. Fell right off the cliff with their freedom to destroy us all.

An open definition of the Competitive Enterprise institute:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... _Institute

Bottom line, funded by hard core right wingers - lets just call them classic fascists - and the Oil and tobacco industry. Hardy an un-biased group.

Once again, virtually all denial ends up with big money insterests who care nothing about us.

I can play the name calling game too and point out the connections between ultra zealous environmentalists and the IPPC, how left wing government officials provide grants to scientists who produce research that gives them the justification to increase taxes and add new regulations (controls) on the people... NONE of this either way proves or disproves the CO2 theory, but if we both engage in name calling, it will get the thread locked.

Thus, going into a rant of, "a right wing rag of dubious credibility given it's extreme bias ..." is really pointless. That is your opinion, not mine; nor do I accept your view of the world. I respect that you have a different view, but I hold a different view.

Mars has "global warming" too, is that from our excess CO2 on Earth?

Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report
Data coincide with increasing solar output
Environment & Climate News > November 2005

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/resu ... eport.html

Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html


There are some real questions here and the fact that the source data is NOT open for inspection from either the CRU or NASA does raise some red flags. Maybe you are satisfied with the conclusion and are willing to sacrifice your freedoms, but I'm not. Nor do I buy into the fears that try to shove on us by telling us all the bad things that might happen...


In the case of the thread, the CEC is a little thing, but it bug me that it keeps growing bigger and bigger...


Bob Diaz

The Sun heats the earth....we learned that a long time ago - and it is the provider of light and energy that in the end becomes trapped in the atmosphere.

It has been disproved that the variances in the sun have caused this problem. Repeatedly. On a quick search I found:

http://www.physorg.com/news161268877.html (from Carnegie Mellon Univ.)

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on ... -warm.html (Stanford Univ, NASA-Goddard)

Key quote: While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The effects of global warming are apparent (see section below) despite the fact that the Sun is once again less bright during the present solar minimum. Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun's brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths, and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance, according to this NASA news article (April 1, 2009)


While I may have more mature to call the Washington Times a rag, but hardly is anything if not a heavily biased right wing tool. Like Glenn Beck, that is not just fact, it is their whole reason for being.

Please, do us all the favor and document "left wing government officials that provide grants to scientists who produce" - biased research. And then pleae, present some modicum of a connection to increated taxes and loss of freedom.

Then maybe you will do us the favor of enlighting us on how that actually impacts us and our freedoms in any way relative to the Patriot Act, and the extortion of the American people by the banks. After all, there is probably not much more lack of freedom than being out of a job and financial collapse.

(And just where is all this cry of freedom in reaction to that disaster...as compared to a itty bitty tiny regulation of TV energy use. In that I am rather non-respective to the whinings of freedom in relation to the attempt to save the planet.)

As for Mars, well, who cares. Proves nothing - it is an utterly different set of parameters.

I'm not sure why this drifted off into the "save the planet", but the main point seems have been ignored by most.

Regardless of having the lowest use per individual, CA still uses too much power, with a power grid at max a good portion of the time. CA has the luxury of a great climate which helps reduce the electrical use to what it is. However there is little room for increased use so regulations limiting power "on new TV sets" doesn't seem like a loss of freedom, it seems more like a frantic try to reduce the electrical use a little bit here and there. Otherwise it's going to be a huge expense for more power lines to increase the grid capacity.

Wait until the "plug in" electric cars hit the road in force. Only a few will be using natural power on those and they are going to have to get the power from some where.
What are the rates per KWh out there? Here in the frozen north where (where it's a presently a balmy 9 degrees) we spend as much or more for gas to heat our homes as we do for electricity, we have no where near the population density. Actually Michigan is only one of two states losing population due to unemployment almost double the national average due to our dependence on the automotive industry. Our electrical rates? bout 10 cents per KWh and that is a rate based only on how much we use, not when.

Here the power companies have been trying to build some new plants, but as they have to show they are needed they can't get permission. In many areas the power usage is down by 12 to almost 20% and that makes it difficult to show a need for more power plants even if they could build ones that are much more efficient.

The Sun heats the earth....we learned that a long time ago - and it is the provider of light and energy that in the end becomes trapped in the atmosphere.

It has been disproved that the variances in the sun have caused this problem. Repeatedly. On a quick search I found:...

Your "proof" is the opinion of some scientists that have a different view; that's NOT proof.

On the flip side:Sunspots, Solar activity, and Arctic Ice
Sampling of scientists and scientific studies predicting global COOLING

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4503

If you take the time to read the studies on the solar effect, it's not just the change in the sun's output, but the changes in gamma rays that has an impact in cloud cover, and excessive cloud cover will cause cooling.


As for loss of freedom:

The Dutch government said Friday it wants to introduce a "green" road tax by the kilometre from 2012 aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent and halving congestion.

"Each vehicle will be equipped with a GPS device that tracks how many kilometres are driven and when and where. This data will be then be sent to a collection agency that will send out the bill," the transport ministry said in a statement.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Everyone in Britain should have an annual carbon ration and be penalised if they use too much fuel, the head of the Environment Agency will say....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... wance.html

Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax ...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... arbon-tax/

Nancy Pelosi pushes global financial fee
Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave her strongest endorsement yet of a global financial transaction fee Thursday after raising the issue directly with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in a conversation this week. ...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30200.html



I could post more, but it's just not worth my time. You hold very strong views and just reject anything that might be different from your views. Besides, at the current rate, this thread should be locked soon...



Bob Diaz

We can discuss forever - as for each submission I see, when I research I find the "experts" are almost always funded by the oil, gas, or right wing propoganda industries. For example, David Archibald from your CFP reference...a compendium of what appears to be mostly opinions. But back to David:

2. David Archibald, Australia. Geologist with Summa Development Limited. Associated with Australia's Lavoisier Group, which was established specifically to be skeptical of climate change. The group receives funding from the coal and oil industry.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... sier_Group
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/arti ... hibald.pdf

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmen ... z0Zxeg9mQh

So I read more....

Inhofe's 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked
List of "Scientists" Includes Economists, Amateurs, TV Weathermen and Industry Hacks

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmen ... z0ZxeNJ9Kf

The CFP's claims are mostly specious at best...all about how cold it is getting - while the HARD physical evidence is in contrast. Ocean, Ice, permafrost melt, etc. Let alone ALL the other science. Little of the CFP's claims appear to be based on fully bodied research.

The CFP describes itself as: "Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone of which contain love of God, love of family, love of country, CFP maintains a loyal and growing readership."

Hardly unbiased - of course God and love has a big part in all this - for the most part when the religious factor is thrown in to science and politics, the rational is thrown out.

Others I found:

Sen. James M. Inhofe's list of 400+ supposedly prominent climate scientists who doubt global warming is full of names that should raise big question marks, including economists and other social scientists, mathematicians, TV weathermen, retired scientists and amateurs. Also included are these 84 names of scientists who have received support for their work from fossil fuel industries

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmen ... z0ZxeatjQO
---------
Your comments on sun effect seem to deny that the two source I noted, did the research at least one on the subject of cloud cover.

Taxes and subsidies to encourge renewables will be needed, I will concede that - because of the vast momentum of the fossil fuel industry. I personally do not see this as a bad thing as the results will be a transformation from the polluting, politically dangerous present systems - that will eventually run out, or at least causes more and more environmental damage to produce. (And then there is greenhouse gases). Witness Germany's significant progress in Solar power.

Finally, the last quote about Pelosi and fees has nothing to do with any of this discussion at all.

And as Roger has stated, we are far from the point - I intend to let this go with this. A minor limitation in TV power for all it's goods and bad in some minds, will only have a win win result. Pushing better designs, and save energy. And possibly lead to a step wise improvement in lots of areas.

Whatever, I tire of this whole thing...

It's clear to me that there's no shortage of people groups that will say anything you want to hear. It would take me a lot of time to search and show that they are being driven by some group with an agenda. However, even if I went through the trouble of doing the research, you'd just throw out labels, like "Right wing.... nut job... " or write off the argument in some other way and in your mind the argument is null and void. So rather than burn up my time on this useless argument where nothing changes, I'll go off and do something more productive.

There is one little tidbit I'll leave everyone....

According to the solar theory of climate change, the longer the time for between each sunspot cycle, the greater the increase in gamma radiation. Increased gamma radiation results in more cloud cover, which results in global cooling. We are currently way overdue for the next sunspot cycle. The scientists that support the solar theory are projecting that the next 10 --> 30 years will result in a strong cooling trend. So, debate all you want, but time will tell...

I do find it funny that "Global Warming" is now being called "Climate Change". Nice, because if the coin lands up heads, they can say, "See it worked!" On the other hand, if it lands tails, they can also say, "See it worked!"


That's all I'm going to say for this thread,

Bob Diaz

Look up Milankovitch cycles which are the driving forces.

Bob, my appologies for my hard descriptions. But, I no longer see a moral equivalence between peer reviewed science and paid liars and lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry.

The term Climate Change is somewhat interchangable with warming, as the chief effects on the shorter term will be Climate change. Water level changes will take longer as the great glaciers of Greenland and Antartica begin to slide into the Ocean at accelerating rates. You know, like snails on steroids.

That Ice Shelves the size of France are quickly breaking up, after having existed for nearly as far back as we can detect...is somewhat concerning, wouldn't you think? (ref Wilkins shelf, fears of the Ross shelf breaking up). Especially in that they hold the ground based sheets back and out of the water. And warming now has rivers pouring through the glaciers, melting them from top and bottom and inbetween, and lubricating their slide.


I can see that like much of the right, you throw up your hands, declare the opposition wrong...or the last ditch is "nothing can be done". I too tire of it, but for this context and environment, I prefer to persue the truth.

Not that this counts coming from a politician, but I had to like it anyway:

"I think there are people that just don't believe in fixing and working on the environment. They don't believe there is such a thing as global warming. They're still living in the Stone Age." -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, responding Tuesday to a "Good Morning America" question about Sarah Palin's position on global warming

-------
About the solar theory (apparently there are a number of cases where scientists have disproved the solar radation theory):

From Wikipedia: Cosmic rays and their role in climate change:

A recent study concluded that the influence of cosmic rays on cloud cover is about a factor of 100 lower than needed to explain the observed changes in clouds or to be a significant contributor to present-day climate change.[48]

^ Pierce, J.R. and P.J. Adams (2009). "Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates?". Geophysical Research Letters 36: L09820. doi:10.1029/2009GL037946

"according a BBC report a 2008 Lancaster University study produced "further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity".

Ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm
Key quote: "Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

-----
Don't call me a fool and this will be the last of this from me!

We have definitely hit rock bottom - quotes from wikipedia? Really?

The GREATEST problem our planet faces is population growth. Look at the two most populace countries on the planet - China and India. Where is pollution (in all forms) the greatest problem? Where are natural resources taken at rates that do not allow sustainability? Where is lack of clean, fresh water a chronic concern? Where is consumption of energy growing at the fastest rates? These issues have taken a back seat to the great debate in which we are engaged in this forum.

Climate Change is a diversion on behalf of developed countries to attempt to keep lesser developed countries from becoming self reliant. This racist movement continues to cost lives throughout many nations. Most nations on the continent of Africa lack the ability to produce sufficient electricity to build the necessary infrastructure to bolster their economies and move into the 21st century.

Coal is abundant throughout most of Africa, yet these predominantly black nations are told they should not build coal fired plants due to emissions. Monetary support is withheld by developed countries because the lesser developed nations do not want to play by OUR rules. What are they supposed to do? Most burn dung, destroy forests, or simply do without. Want a reality check? Google mortality rates for Niger, Chad, Sudan or Ethiopia. Check out mortality rates (infant and adult). Then check birth rates for these same countries. You will see that both of theses measures are among the highest on the planet. The correlation between birth rates and development of infrastructure are joined at the hip. That is, the more developed a country becomes, the lower the birth rate. Check any of the dozens of sources and you will quickly see what is already known. The way to keep the black masses in line is to keep them dependent upon wealthier nations. All of Western, Far East and Middle Eastern Society is guilty. It is racist, immoral and ultimately responsible for thousands of deaths.

Take a few moments to listen to all of the banter at Copenhagen - it doesn't sound like even those on the "same side" can agree what course to pursue. Why is that? Because as with most things in this world it all comes down to $$$$$. And which countries have the most to give? The Western, Far East and Middle Eastern nations. What are the lesser developed countries asking for at this conference? More money and fewer restrictions so they can begin to lift themselves up. What are they told? Sorry, your survival and that of your children is not a priority.

PLEASE wake up and realize the entire Climate Change issue is a racist ruse designed maintain and increase the power of those at the top. Everyone else is expendable for the "sake of the planet."

mbowman, I would have hoped the references on Wikipedia were legitimate and valid. I guess I have to dig deeper.

I agree with everything else you say, till the very end. I am not thought out on the sociological aspects as much as you are, but I suggest that while there is everything you say, there is also a Global Warming issue.

It would be nice if the world could find a way to balance economics with humanity, but given we have no intention of doing that for our (American) selves, I doubt we can achive that externally.

The concept of suggesting birth control worldwide certainly garners hysteria at a biblical level, but I have heard it said that simply as women become more empowered, and given access to family planning support, the birth rate falls dramatically.

So in essense, the population bomb issue might just be fundamentalist power plays against women.

I feel that this whole thread is pursuing the wrong premise. I do believe that global warming is real. as to what of it is directly attributable to human activity, I think the jury is still out. That global warming could bring vast changes to climate and the environment is beyond dispute. But that we should fight it or somehow stop it is preposterous. geologival and human history should and will proceed on its inevitable course, regardless of what influences it. If it means the eventual extinction of the human population, like the dinosaurs, so be it.

Do not get me wrong, I have children and grandchildren for whom I wish the best. But fighting their ultimate destiny is both futile and useless. What will be, will be, enjoy the present. We individually have been granted a limited time on this earth and likewise the human race has a limited existance. Let us use it to the fullest.

If this sounds hedonistic and selfish, so be it, that is how we all have been created. And those that say that they are better and nobler, and less selfish are only deluding themselves. I for one watch the selfrightous fools in Copenhagen with an amused detachment. I will have no nostalgia if my present way of life changes due to global warming even in my lifetime. I came from war and poverty in Europe to this selfindulgent country, and I can go back to poverty and starvation, if that is the destiny that is for me and eventually the human race as well. I am not going to be scared into foolish actions that are to my detriment, especially if such actions may have no or only minimal effect on the problems thay intend to tackle.

reginars....you sound like the typically hypnotized rightwinger. In the face of challenge that might bother the money interests, roll over and claim it is all just futile. I hear this constantly from the right people I talk to, as soon as their argument falls apart, it always falls to "it's futile, so why bother".

I do not think we will turn manmade global warming around to a sufficient degree, but that does not mean there are not other win-win decisions and actions that can be made. A big part of the whine of it will be expensive - flys right in the face of the fact we need jobs. An economy is the flow of money, not just the possession of it. And if population control is too hard to deal with, then we need jobs, and lots of them - else sooner or later we will see some form of revolution, or societal breakdown.

As for the jury being out. Try actually reading source and not story. You are being lied to by professionals, all day, every day. As their backers think feudalism and castlations are the only way to live a full and completely life. As in all science there is debate, but virtually no one who is really in the trenches of peer reviewed research is denying man-made global warming.

I wonder if you have told your children and grandchildren what you have told us? And how did it sit?

A local Chemical company (Dow) had a press release a couple weeks back, that said they have reduced emissions by 20% and increased profits, so apparently it wasn't too expensive for them. What each of us does may be little, but taken together we can change the course of rivers and move mountains. If we have the power screw up the climate, it stands to reason we should also have the power to fix it. <:-))

Those "always on" TV and Computer switching supplies may only draw 10 or 15 watts each, but between TVs and Computers we draw well over a hundred watts here. Each CFL saves us about 50 watts per hour. So between those power supplies and CFLs we save over 200 watts per hour, or 2.4 KWh per day. Now that's only about 30 cents a day, but it's 72 KWh and about $7.00 a month. When you start adding homes the total builds to some pretty big numbers that are good for the planet and good for us in saving money.