More on Global Warming

Remove all ads!

have you ever seen a residental building constructed in the last 50 years made out of thick stone or a stone high rise?what are the required R ratings for house insulation where you live? the tempature range i mentioned is just where i live, it gets much hotter & humid in parts of the us.

 

martaug,
I have lived in such a house for all my childhood. The house where I live in now will be isolated further next month, as a result of my landlord adapting to recent energy saving legislation, increasing wall thickness to aproximately two feet deep, and we have a rather mild climate here.

[ October 28, 2007, 19:48: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

This is all interesting and all, but you guys are missing the real heart of pollution: Industry.

Every kind of pollution finds industry as its major source: air, water, ground water, soil, chemicals in the biosystem, hell, even sound and light pollution.

There's a coal-fired powerplant nearby (well, some ways away, really) that has recently been under scrutiny for one thing and another, but one issue that came up was this: replacing that single plant with a non-fossil fuel alternative (of which there are plenty around here) would be the equivalent of taking 300 thousand cars off the road (I think). that's just ONE coal-fired powerplant, and it wasn't even that bad a source as far as they go.

The Kyoto Protocol wasn't an adequate solution because it exempted developing countries (which, as I hear it, included China and Russia). There's talk of a new deal specifically between China, Russia, Japan, and the US (initiated by the US) to set emission standards that match or beat the Kyoto Protocol, but treats all of them equally. Whether that'll come to anything, and whether the above ACTUALLY had anything to do with the US refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol I don't know.

One thing I do know, however, is where to place the blame for much of the industrial pollution around here and across the US: THE LIBERALS! That's right, the very people that are championing ecological awareness around here are also the ones protesting the new wind turbine projects in the Shenendoah Valley and California, new nuclear power plants everywhere, and pretty much every alternative energy source that exists. They've even protested a few solar power plants, SOLAR POWER!!

Working at the Department of Environmental Quality as I do, I could go into a real rant about all this, but I don't want to do that just now.

 

Oh, no! A Coultergeisting! ...Well, it is almost Halloween.

Nevertheless, since you "know" at least one thing, you may know or may not know, that we have one of those nuclear plants operating here in Texas (the heart of liberalism, I assue you), and it has been operating quite well, of late. But its past problems were hardly inspired by "liberal activists" but instead by corporate incompetence. This is from Wiki:

Trick or Treat!

 

Gross misrepresentation, NOG. You rightfully point out that "liberals" don't like nuclear power. We don't.....and for good reason. (It's called nuclear waste.) However, the phony environmental groups out there protesting solar and wind power are just that....phony. All one needs to do is look at who's actually behind these projects to notice that they are typically the work of residents who, in the hopes of enhancing their credibility, masquerade as liberal environmental groups in order to prevent unwanted projects from taking place in their back yards.

Take a look, for example, at the Cape Wind project. Sure, Ted Kennedy is out there with some bogus environmental group (created and mostly composed of locals and put together solely to oppose the Cape wind project) disingenuously trying to kill it. It's the "not in my back yard" theory at work, here. Mr Kennedy is concerned that his property will go down in value along with the project, but the efforts of this long-time champion of wind power to kill this extraordinarily responsible energy project are destroying his political career. Not only has his own party turned its back on him, but his chances of ever getting elected again in his home state are close to nil. Over 70% of Massachusetts residents support the project, and they aren't very happy with Mr. Kennedy.

It's kind of Ironic, really. Back in the 70's, an intoxicated Ted Kennedy drove his car off a bridge and swam ashore, his then-girlfriend drowning in the accident, and failed to call the police until the next morning, long after they found his car. Massachusetts kept electing him. More recently, an (again) intoxicated Ted Kennedy crashed his car into the reflecting pool, but Massachusetts kept electing him. Now that he's shown his true colors by cynically turning against everything he stood for as a politician for the last 30+ years, his career is in shambles.

All that said, NOG, show me the republican law makers* out there championing green energy (and, no, nuclear power is not green energy). Show me the republican law makers* championing wind power, solar power, geo-thermal power. Where are they, NOG? Who was it that deregulated nuclear energy**? Who was it that deregulated coal**?

*New Mexico Republicans don't count.
**Republicans (and, yeah, the Democrats had a few traitors, too)

 

Ok, I just recently realized how poorly I worded that and came to correct it in hopes of averting some of the well-deserved flaming. I see I'm a little late, but not terribly. Both of you have responded responsibly and well.

What I meant was the radical liberals, a VERY vocal minority (I'm really not sure how much of a minority, but I'm sure if they were a majority, they'd be MUCH louder).

Chandos, that demonstrates the irresponsability of the developers and the like, but it doesn't really address the pollution issue, unless you count thought pollution . Have there been any radiation leaks? Have there been any nuclear waste discharges? That's what I'm concerned with. As for nuclear waste in general, most of the information out there is 30+ years out of date (though not all). A good portion of the nuclear waste produced today is taken by the military which leaches the last of the radiation out (I'm assuming this is a non-energy efficient method of accelerated decay or something) and uses the depleted uranium as armor and shells, especially for the M1-A1.

Anyway, nuclear power is just one of the alternatives these people don't like.

@Drew:
I know who the people in Virginia that are doing it are, and they are liberals, mostly democrats, and mostly not knowing what they're talking about. There are numerous conservative and mixed community groups that are in the state and work to improve stuff, not just protest things they don't like. Most notably are groups like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the various Concerned Citezens for [NAME YOUR RIVER, STREAM, OR LAKE]. These people generally do a great deal to moniter water conditions, raise funds for wetland protection and various planting activities (marsh grasses, oysters, etc.), and raise public awareness of the sources of the problems, which are largely the citizens in this case. When you compare the two, there is a stark and drastic difference in the way they work. The radical groups all seem to think that protests are the only thing that counts and opposing a bad idea is vastly better than supporting (or even coming up with) a good idea. They generally don't involve the community, don't work with others, and feel that they are the absolute right. They are also entirely liberals. Yes, they are locals, but they are also liberals.

This may not be as true on the west coast, or inbetween, or in other nations (How is it in Europe these days?), but around here that's who they are.

Around here? All the polliticians, republicans and democrats alike, 'liberals' and 'conservatives', they've all been for the deregulation of coal and nuclear power until recently. Now, with the political winds, they're all championing higher regulations, though only a few have taken the leap to support alternative energies.

In fact, with this whole Mirant Power Plant issue, Gov. Tim Kaine (D) is pretty much the only one in the government supporting Mirant's move (which will make things worse for a larger region). Also, 10 years ago, during the Clinton Era, there was a big move to shut the place down altogether, but D.C. wouldn't allow it because most of Mirant's energy went to D.C. and they didn't want to build something new. I'm not sure who all in D.C. this was, but someone there.

All in all, Drew, what I'm saying is that politicians tend to go however they think they'll get the most votes. It's the general public and the 'advocacy groups' that I'm complaining to and about.

 

NOG, radical liberals don't protest green energy. The further you go to the left, the more likely you are to support it. Whatever these bogeyman liberals are saying they are, they are not liberals. If an animal looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Even if the duck says it's a baleen whale. Calling yourself liberal doesn't make it so.

 

Ah, but supporting gay marriage, banning of guns, liberal govenment moves, etc. does. Basically, the environment is not the only liberal issue, and these people are more focused on attacking anything they don't like than they are on supporting real solutions.

Most of the time, they even bring up environmental concerns but, because they didn't bother to actually research the issue, those concerns are moot. That doesn't stop them from protesting, though, and they're so vocal that the people that DO know what they're talking about can't get a word in edgewise and the public ends up believing them.

 

Semantically speaking conserving the environment is a perfectly conservative concern, wouldn't conservatives also have this overriding 'dominion over earth' view rendering discussing semantics pointless.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html
hmmm, one of the members of the ipcc stating and i qoute
"I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."

and also this
"The recent CNN report "Planet in Peril," for instance, spent considerable time discussing shrinking Arctic sea ice cover. CNN did not note that winter sea ice around Antarctica last month set a record maximum (yes, maximum) for coverage since aerial measurements started"

ooops , looks like all those saying global warming is being overblown may have some of their facts right after all

 

So its meaninless jive it a concervative says it, but entirely valid if a liberal says it (I'm assuming this guy's a liberal since he was on the IPCC)?

Seriously, though, there's been proof this stuff is a loose correlation at best for some time now.

 

Here's the deal. And maybe, just maybe, a little light may turn on. The issue IS NOT about liberals nor conservatives; the issue is about global warming. For you guys, it must be about how you can prove "liberals are wrong" and conservatives are right. That's called ideology. The issue for you has nothing to do with the planet, global warming, etc - you know, the stuff you could care less about. See, John McCain is an advocate of global warming - and a self-proclaimed "conservative" and Republican. Gosh, you didn't know that some Republicans were also concerned with GW?

Sorry, if I'm not impressed with your article in the WSJ: the media outlet being purchased by the same guy who owns FOX News. Does that make me an ideologue? Quite possibly. You see, I'm not an expert on GW, and I don't pretend to be. I do know that I would like the planet to be in fairly good shape for my grandchildren (when I have them). I learned as far back as in kindergarten that when you were finished using some things, you left them in good shape for the next person, who may want to use the same object. But you may have missed that day.

You also learn another valuble lesson in kindergarten, like no one is right all the time, just as no one is wrong all the time. The important thing here is the awareness that something may be wrong, and that we need to examine the issue closely because it may profoundly effect the next generation adversely. It may or may not. But I'm not willing to risk the future of my children, or their children. Not for anyone's ideology.

 

Hurray for Chandos!

 

I still don't understand why it is that laymen feel equipped to judge whether or not a scientific consensus is valid or not.

I also find the selective credulity of the anti-climate change crowd interesting.

 

as opposed to the selective credulity of "the climate change has to be all mans fault" crowd ?

and chandos, from your posts, you seem to believe that anything a democrat says is right now matter what. so , to borrow your own words,i'm not impressed.

 

No, that crowd--whoever they are, I've yet to meet, read of, or hear of one--is equally stupid.

Fortunately, serious people don't hold that position.

But that's really beside the point, so I'll ask again, more pointedly: why do you, Martaug, think you know better than the overwhelming majority of experts in the field?

 

i, like many others, do not believe there is an overwhelming majority. plain and simple.

has there been global increases in tempatures in certain areas? yes
has there been record snowfalls? yes
has there been large ice calving on artic glaciers? yes
has the polar bear population ibeen ncreasing? yes

for every negative there is a corrosponding positive
is man to blame for all the woes? no it's just part of the cultural thinking of humans that if something is wrong it has to be our fault therfore it lies within our ability to fix it

 

If you count laymen, then sure, maybe there isn't an overwhelming majority. However, when you actually restrict your search to people that are, say, actually qualified to make an adjudication about the cause and scope of global warming, there most certainly is. You can't sum up decades of research and thousands of studies on the subject of global warming in five minutes and the only way for a layman to have enough knowledge to actually understand all of the underlying science behind it is to actually cease to be a layman....and that takes years. Global Warming is neither plain nor simple. Believe whatever delusion you want, but if you want to convince other reasonable people that the more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 850 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors from over 130 countries who contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years are wrong, then you're going to need to include some proof....from respected climatologists who actually publish their research. Again, the science behind Global Warming is not simple. As a layman, you are simply not qualified to argue with their conclusions.

Is a layman qualified to advise a Neurosurgeon on the finer aspects of brain surgery? Is a layman qualified to advise a CPA on the finer aspects of the US income tax code? Is a layman qualified to advise even a neophyte prosecutor on the ins and outs of our criminal code? No! So....why do you think you know better than the climatologists of the IPCC?

 

read the article linked to drew. stop being such a tool & quit harping the party line.