Why is Global Warming a partisan issue?

[Taco John]

I got to thinking about this tonight... I don't understand is how this issue became a partisan one... What is it about Democrats that makes them predisposed to the idea that Global Warming is caused by man's use of fossil fuels? What is it about Republicans that makes them adhere to the idea that Global Warming absolutely cannot be caused by the use of fossil fuels?

I don't believe science is the answer on either side, because both sides have plenty of science to back their claims...

How in the world did this become a partisan issue?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I got to thinking about this tonight... I don't understand is how this issue became a partisan one... What is it about Democrats that makes them predisposed to the idea that Global Warming is caused by man's use of fossil fuels? What is it about Republicans that makes them adhere to the idea that Global Warming absolutely cannot be caused by the use of fossil fuels?

I don't believe science is the answer on either side, because both sides have plenty of science to back their claims...

How in the world did this become a partisan issue?The overwhelming majority of experts and scientists agree on man made warming.
One side uses science, logic and common sense, the other ignores and suppresses science so no, both sides don't "have plenty of science to back their claims".

[spdirty]

Some leftists see it as their religion and anyone who might offer a differint viewpoint or evidence that states otherwise is a heretic and needs to be cast out of the scientific community. Example, here is a differing viewpoint. I don't know if this guy is right or not, I'm not a scientist, but he does make some real good points. And instead of looking at this article objectively, some on the board will cast it as junk science and get their panties in a fret.Me personally, I don't think we as humans are responsible for it, but to be honest, I am not an expert, scientist, nor do I pay enough attention to it to offer a real informed opinion. Just wish the attitude from the "man causes global warming and anyone who doesn't agree is a goddamn bastard" crowd would stop being so silly and acknowledge that it is not written in stone that man does cause it. For me, if man is the cause, fine. Lets do something about it. But take a look at the other side for once and come to a conclusion yourself, instead of lapping up whatever Algore gives you.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.


What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Some leftists see it as their religion and anyone who might offer a differint viewpoint or evidence that states otherwise is a heretic and needs to be cast out of the scientific community. Example, here is a differing viewpoint. I don't know if this guy is right or not, I'm not a scientist, but he does make some real good points. You do know that Ball is a "scientific advisor" to the Friends of Science (backed by the oil industry)?

[spdirty]

You do know that Ball is a "scientific advisor" to the Friends of Science (backed by the oil industry)?

there you go...perfect example. Just attack the messenger instead of debating what the guy actually had to say. Its such a common tactic by both sides.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

there you go...perfect example. Just attack the messenger instead of debating what the guy actually had to say. Its such a common tactic by both sides.
And tell me, what is he saying that is correct?

His message his the same ole message big oil has been spewing for years. 95 out of 100 scientists believe man is responsible for the current warming.

Find me some experts and scientists who are not aligned with big oil and or the Bush administration lets see what they have to say.

[TheDave]

The overwhelming majority of experts and scientists agree on man made warming.
One side uses science, logic and common sense, the other ignores and suppresses science so no, both sides don't "have plenty of science to back their claims".

If you are talking peer reviewed published scientific works it is nearly 100%. There is very little debate about this subject among the people actually studying this.

On the other hand I've heard that if you sample articles on this subject from the MSM it is closer to 50/50...probably why there is confusion.

[Hotrod]

Well TJ there is your answer I believe

[TheDave]

You do know that Ball is a "scientific advisor" to the Friends of Science (backed by the oil industry)?

I think i've seen this before...

[Spider]

reason why Global warming is a partisan Issue is $$$ .....
Eco people get $$ , Big Companies want to save $$ ........
but if you want the real story , take a look at L.A. ........
double the cars and driver from 1980 , but nowhere near the pollution today ...
whether that has a direct effect on Global warming I dont know , but what I do know is , it is nice to breathe in LA with out sucking in so much pollution.......
But id Profits are your only concern , then you dont really give a damn if we wind up like Japan a few decades ago ......

[spdirty]

And tell me, what is he saying that is correct?
Made some pretty good points. Hell if I know if he is correct, I just give the other side the time of day, before calling him a heretic.


His message his the same ole mesage big oil has been spewing for years. 95 out of 100 scientists believe man is responsible for the current warming.

Find me some experts and scientists who are not aligned with big oil and or the Bush administration lets see what they have to say.

Yeah, once again, don't acknowledge what he said, just go to the simple politics of personal destruction. Like I give a shlt who funds him. If he's correct, he's correct.

[alkemical]

I thought i'd be dead before i saw a glacier move through the Susquahanna Valley - but i'm debating this today.....

[TailgateNut]

If scientists were not allowed to recieve royalties, maybe they would refrain from biased "studies".

Regarding the "greenpeace" vs "oil company" donations: I doubt Greenpeace has the "buying power" the oil companies possess.

[Hotrod]

We've completly lost focus as a people and as a country.

[alkemical]

We've completly lost focus as a people and as a country.

Somehow, i don't think it's unintentional.

[Spider]

we had a glacier here in Wyoming melt a few years back ........ Found a lake noone ever knew was there , the bad part is the lake drained when the glacier melted , flooded the area ..........

[spdirty]

reason why Global warming is a partisan Issue is $$$

Bingo. And thats why the debate gets nasty.

[RaiderH8r]

And tell me, what is he saying that is correct?

His message his the same ole mesage big oil has been spewing for years. 95 out of 100 scientists believe man is responsible for the current warming.

Find me some experts and scientists who are not aligned with big oil and or the Bush administration lets see what they have to say.

And find me someone who isn't aligned with an environmental cause society or funded by a government and see what they have to say.

The lines are drawn and the sides have been picked. The EU wants to hamstring American productivity and GDP, Universities and professors have found a golden goose of grant funding, Sierra Club, Greenpeace et al have found a donation stream a mile wide and 20 feet deep. Science is out the window.

If you buy into the idea of global warming there is nothing that will change your mind and vice versa. But if policy action is going to be taken, and I believe it will, there can be absolutely no progress in curbing CO2 without ensuring India and China both drastically reduce their emissions. Otherwise you're just taking emissions out of one place and putting them in another.

Of the signatories to the Kyoto agreement only 2, Sweden and England, stand to meet the standard in that document. Sweden generates most of their power through nuclear and England made an astonishing push to natural gas fired power. Neither of these steps are something some US policymakers are willing to consider.

My belief is that humans have an oversimplified view on an issue that is tremendously complex and chaotic. While temperature gauges can tell us what is happening in terms of farenheit and celsius, I strongly believe that these same scientists have done a poor job of examining and testing all of the variables that come to bear on climate. Even the IPCC Summary for policymakers, which I have a gripe about, doesn't step forward and address changes in solar activity which I think is an absolute travesty because no human activity, no matter how egregious, has as strong of an effect on global climate as solar activity.

My gripe with the IPCC SPM is that, quite simply, they issued an executive summary that will be used to make policy decisions without releasing the scientific methodology and research to support it. That comes over the next 11 months. It seems the SPM should have been released at the end of this process, not the beginning.

[TailgateNut]

I think i've seen this before...

Nice find!

[spdirty]

If scientists were not allowed to recieve royalties, maybe they would refrain from biased "studies".

Regarding the "greenpeace" vs "oil company" donations: I doubt Greenpeace has the "buying power" the oil companies possess.

But the government and their 2.9 Trillion dollar budget does.

[RaiderH8r]

But the government and their 2.9 Trillion dollar budget does.

Ding. ding ding, tell him what he's won Charlie...

[Spider]

We've completly lost focus as a people and as a country.

only those that want to believe the propaganda , I think everyone can agree that pollution is bad , sure cleaning up cuts into Profits , but thats life

[Spider]

you would think Google would have the answers by now ;D

[TheDave]

Again, anyone who feels that this is just made up scare tactics by the tree huggers an PETA people... construct an argument using peer reviewed literature. Not an opinion or an editorial from the paper, but actual scientific findings. Trust me you are going to have a real hard time finding anything.

[Spider]

Again, anyone who feels that this is just made up scare tactics by the tree huggers an PETA people... construct an argument using peer reviewed literature. Not an opinion or an editorial from the paper, but actual scientific findings. Trust me you are going to have a real hard time finding anything.

Global Warming is a natural event ........
Spider........ chapter 16, verse 33 ;D

[Ninjafied]

only those that want to believe the propaganda , I think everyone can agree that pollution is bad , sure cleaning up cuts into Profits , but thats life

And the money trail just starts from there.
Imagine if China or India had to impose stricter environmental controls or limit industrial output. That could easily lead to millions upon million of unemployed.
Then of course they would have to burn tires to keep warm in the winter.

[Spider]

And the money trail just starts from there.
Imagine if China or India had to impose stricter environmental controls or limit industrial output. That could easily lead to millions upon million of unemployed.
Then of course they would have to burn tires to keep warm in the winter.

yeah who care if India's Sewage problem is at Dangerous levels , nothing wrong with living in filth as long as you make a profit right ?
or China's heavy polluted air ....... who needs to breathe ? air is overrated ...
Seriously you could have found 2 better examples , then shít wading and choking ..... unless that is your bag .......

[RaiderH8r]

yeah who care if India's Sewage problem is at Dangerous levels , nothing wrong with living in filth as long as you make a profit right ?
or China's heavy polluted air ....... who needs to breathe ? air is overrated ...
Seriously you could have found 2 better examples , then shít wading and choking ..... unless that is your bag .......

I think the clear point here is that environmental causes are secondary to putting food on the table, so to speak. Environmental causes are undertaken by those with the luxury to do so.

At any rate, I don't hear of a lot of greenpeace, earth liberation front, defenders of wildlife, etal protesting the pollution of the Ghanges or the smog in Beijing. Why is that?

[Spider]

I think the clear point here is that environmental causes are secondary to putting food on the table, so to speak. Environmental causes are undertaken by those with the luxury to do so.


sure nothing wrong with choking from pollution after every bite of Shít gravy ........Silly assed enviors dont understand that wading through **** and choking on polluted air is what separates the men from the boys ..........

[Spider]

nothing goes with Rice better then the scent of **** and pollution in the air

[alkemical]

I think the clear point here is that environmental causes are secondary to putting food on the table, so to speak. Environmental causes are undertaken by those with the luxury to do so.

At any rate, I don't hear of a lot of greenpeace, earth liberation front, defenders of wildlife, etal protesting the pollution of the Ghanges or the smog in Beijing. Why is that?


Have you checked with Greenpeace China? Or have they been jailed and harvested for organs? ;)

[Spider]

my point is Envior issues shouldnt be secondary issues .........
no reason why they cant clean up and keep people employed .....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I think the clear point here is that environmental causes are secondary to putting food on the table, so to speak. Environmental causes are undertaken by those with the luxury to do so.

At any rate, I don't hear of a lot of greenpeace, earth liberation front, defenders of wildlife, etal protesting the pollution of the Ghanges or the smog in Beijing. Why is that?What's the point of Americans protesting pollution in other countries when we won't even take steps to reign in and admit our pollution which dwarfs every other country?

[RaiderH8r]

Have you checked with Greenpeace China? Or have they been jailed and harvested for organs? ;)

I figured it would demonstrate how deeply held their convictions are on the issue.

[loborugger]

Funny, in the 70s, they told us that all the pollution in the atmosphere was going to led to global cooling, with the most extreme example being the "Nuclear Winter" scenario. The Experts were pondering when the next, man-induced, ice age would follow.

Then we had the 80s, where we were destroying the ozone with hair products and MickeyD's containers. It was never clearly explained why the ozone hole opened over Antartica - the area on the planet furtherest from the northern hemisphere where most of the population and an even larger percentage of the industry is based. It woulda made a lot more sense if the ozone hole opened over say, Detroit, Dusseldorf, Moscow, etc. If hair products were like totally the cause, dude, then like the ozone hole shoulda totally opened over the San Fernando Valley.

And now the flavor of the month is global warming.

I was watching the History Channel last night. They had a 2 hour segment about the Sahara. The show started with a segment about the Sahara in prehistoric times. How it was once a savannah area. Satellite photos show ancient lakes and riverbeds, while archaeological digs find pollens from plants that can't survive in the desert. Funny thing - The Experts said that once, there was even more heat on the Sahara. This additional heat created additional weather activity which created things like thunderstorms, etc. The area was wetter, greener, and actually cooler because of the increased moisture.

The fact is we had an Ice Age on this planet. Further, there are remains of tropical plants in places like Alaska - wonder how much global warming would be required for Alaska to have tropical plants. Oh, and BTW, Alaska is having a rather cold winter this year, I hear.

And what caused that Ice Age & Global warm up? Was it cavemen with their fires and pre-historical industries? Global warming. So easy a caveman could do it. Could it possibly be that the earth was/is going thru a cycle? That the planet is not a stable, always constant weather environment? That, far and away, seems like the most resonable explanation.

[RaiderH8r]

What's the point of Americans protesting pollution in other countries when we won't even take steps to reign in and admit our pollution which dwarfs every other country?

American GDP also dwarfs every other country. China is set to overtake the US in emissions inside of a decade. Our emissions, relative to GDP, is considerably better than most countries. But that's not an argument the EU wants to hear.

[Ninjafied]

And what caused that Ice Age & Global warm up? Was it cavemen with their fires and pre-historical industries?

Conceivably it could have been forest fires, which were much bigger back then – say like the size of the Midwest.
But I don't know the answer now so why speculate on what happened back then.

[loborugger]

Conceivably it could have been forest fires, which were much bigger back then – say like the size of the Midwest.
But I don't know the answer now so why speculate on what happened back then.


Which is a great point. We dont know what happened back then. We have accurate weather readings going back a couple hundred years, depending on the area. We are making dire predictions about the future from a data that goes back a very short time.

I am not saying we shouldnt be good stewards of the earth. There is no reason to dump raw sewage into rivers, not get more efficient autos, etc. But I am not willing to jump on the Chicken Little bandwagon. Sorry.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Which is a great point. We dont know what happened back then. We have accurate weather readings going back a couple hundred years, depending on the area. We are making dire predictions about the future from a data that goes back a very short time.

I am not saying we shouldnt be good stewards of the earth. There is no reason to dump raw sewage into rivers, not get more efficient autos, etc. But I am not willing to jump on the Chicken Little bandwagon. Sorry.There is no "Chicken Little bandwagon", there are however the majority of educated and informed people in the world who don't turn their nose up at science and common sense. Like Dave said, where's the peer reviewed science that shows warming isn't man made?

[Ninjafied]

nothing goes with Rice better then the scent of **** and pollution in the air
Obviously the scent of **** and pollution in the air goes better with rice than nothing at all. 1 billion semi-starved Chinamen can’t be wrong. :sickortir

no reason why they cant clean up and keep people employed .....
Don’t you think that if China could clean it up and keep the jobs they would? It’d certainly cut back on the Bird Flu, SARS, or whatever else their cultivating over there.
But If their leaders are running the State Owned Enterprises for the profits my hopes for communism go out the window. But they’re not, the SOEs are a form of welfare to keep as many people employed as possible; efficiency and nonperforming loans be damned. Then again millions of unemployed and starving Chinese isn’t a problem anyone really wants to deal with. Clearly their leaders think unemployment is worse than pollution.
Same thing in India or any other crap hole; tighten up the regulations and the business goes elsewhere.

[N.O.Bronco]

Heres why its a partsan issue. The Rights base is the SUV loving gas guzzling, anti science fundies. The republicans get lots i mean lots of money from big oil, just look at Bush who allowed a college drop out to edit the scientific work of scientists so it wouldnt say global warming is happening and that climate change isnt going on
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/30/scientists-warming/
then look at bushs ties to big-oil, there huge, probably the largest tie that any president has had to the industry.

hence theres a lot of incentive for the right to try and cast doubt into the publics eye about global warming. If you watch foxnews for your global warming debate you would never know that only 14 or so scieintists say global wawming isnt man-made. But becasue places like foxnews focuses on the doubt and ignores the evidence the avg conservative viewer bites into that fallacy. Even CNN is guilty they give half their show to the other side while forgetting to mention just how much of a minority that denier is a part of. Then the general Conservative who seems to see politics as a football game and any conservative is their home-team, they fight and die to try and "win" that argument against the evil wacky liberals.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

American GDP also dwarfs every other country. China is set to overtake the US in emissions inside of a decade. Our emissions, relative to GDP, is considerably better than most countries. But that's not an argument the EU wants to hear.Not per capita and the EU emits far less pollutants than the U.S.







http://www.finfacts.ie/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/1718/gdpcf1.jpg

[alkemical]

Obviously the scent of **** and pollution in the air goes better with rice than nothing at all. 1 billion semi-starved Chinamen can’t be wrong. :sickortir


Don’t you think that if China could clean it up and keep the jobs they would? It’d certainly cut back on the Bird Flu, SARS, or whatever else their cultivating over there.
But If their leaders are running the State Owned Enterprises for the profits my hopes for communism go out the window. But they’re not, the SOEs are a form of welfare to keep as many people employed as possible; efficiency and nonperforming loans be damned. Then again millions of unemployed and starving Chinese isn’t a problem anyone really wants to deal with. Clearly their leaders think unemployment is worse than pollution.
Same thing in India or any other crap hole; tighten up the regulations and the business goes elsewhere.



Exaclty -

[alkemical]

American GDP also dwarfs every other country. China is set to overtake the US in emissions inside of a decade. Our emissions, relative to GDP, is considerably better than most countries. But that's not an argument the EU wants to hear.


...as the geo-economic war wages and rages on against the us dollar.

[ant1999e]

Global Warming is a natural event ........
Spider........ chapter 16, verse 33 ;D

Amen

[Ninjafied]

Here’s why it’s a partisan issue = oil and its derivatives are the cheapest and most efficient way to run an engine and industry (nuclear power aside) and if you want to make people use less or alternative means you’re going to have to impose government regulation. How much regulation you want kind of points to which side of the issue you’re on.

[alkemical]

Algae-Based Fuels Set to Bloom (http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=18138)


"...The theoretical potential is clear. Algae can be grown in open ponds or sealed in clear tubes, and it can produce far more oil per acre than soybeans, a source of oil for biodiesel. Algae can also clean up waste by processing nitrogen from wastewater and carbon dioxide from power plants. What's more, it can be grown on marginal lands useless for ordinary crops, and it can use water from salt aquifers that is not useful for drinking or agriculture. "Algae have the potential to produce a huge amount of oil," says Kathe Andrews-Cramer, the technical lead researcher for biofuels and bioenergy programs at Sandia National Laboratories, in Albuquerque, NM. "We could replace certainly all of our diesel fuel with algal-derived oils, and possibly replace a lot more than that." ..."

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Here’s why it’s a partisan issue = oil and its derivatives are the cheapest and most efficient way to run an engine and industry (nuclear power aside) and if you want to make people use less or alternative means you’re going to have to impose government regulation. How much regulation you want kind of points to which side of the issue you’re on.Or, how clean you want the air you breath, the water you drink, or the ground you walk on.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I got to thinking about this tonight... I don't understand is how this issue became a partisan one... What is it about Democrats that makes them predisposed to the idea that Global Warming is caused by man's use of fossil fuels? What is it about Republicans that makes them adhere to the idea that Global Warming absolutely cannot be caused by the use of fossil fuels?

I don't believe science is the answer on either side, because both sides have plenty of science to back their claims...

How in the world did this become a partisan issue?
Global warming, like other environmental issues, results in government intervention in the form of compliance issues with EPA guidelines, as well as a lot of other industry related requirements that drive up the cost of doing business and threaten the profit margins for the commerce model we've carefully constructed. Hence, the corporate world, politically conservative by-and-large, resists any attempt to change that model by arguing against the merits of the arguments that support environmental change. Rank and file party members on both sides of the issue fall in lock step with the utterancces of their party leadership, regardless of whether they understand the scientific arguments or not...as they do with most issues.

As green technologies become more entrenched, business will slowly move toward wider acceptance of the thinking that drives those technologies. US companies all already moving in that direction because they are finding ways to create profit with the new technologies. Ultimately nothing will completely change till we break with fossil fuels on a much larger scale though.

[Spider]

Obviously the scent of **** and pollution in the air goes better with rice than nothing at all. 1 billion semi-starved Chinamen can’t be wrong. :sickortir


Don’t you think that if China could clean it up and keep the jobs they would? It’d certainly cut back on the Bird Flu, SARS, or whatever else their cultivating over there.
But If their leaders are running the State Owned Enterprises for the profits my hopes for communism go out the window. But they’re not, the SOEs are a form of welfare to keep as many people employed as possible; efficiency and nonperforming loans be damned. Then again millions of unemployed and starving Chinese isn’t a problem anyone really wants to deal with. Clearly their leaders think unemployment is worse than pollution.
Same thing in India or any other crap hole; tighten up the regulations and the business goes elsewhere.

Yeah practice what you preach . Stop indoor plumming , Start ****ting in a bucket, it will save you money on City water and sewage , then come back and tell me how good it is

[Spider]

Or, how clean you want the air you breath, the water you drink, or the ground you walk on.

I want it pretty clean ..........

[BroncoInferno]

Again, anyone who feels that this is just made up scare tactics by the tree huggers an PETA people... construct an argument using peer reviewed literature. Not an opinion or an editorial from the paper, but actual scientific findings. Trust me you are going to have a real hard time finding anything.

Anyone on the other side care to take Dave up on this? RadierH8er, sdirty and others seem to ignore this.

There is no debate about this in the scientific community. In peer reviewed scientific literature it is 100% on the side that man contributes to global warming. The "debate" only exists in the political arena.

[Spider]

Funny, in the 70s, they told us that all the pollution in the atmosphere was going to led to global cooling, with the most extreme example being the "Nuclear Winter" scenario. The Experts were pondering when the next, man-induced, ice age would follow.

Then we had the 80s, where we were destroying the ozone with hair products and MickeyD's containers. It was never clearly explained why the ozone hole opened over Antartica - the area on the planet furtherest from the northern hemisphere where most of the population and an even larger percentage of the industry is based. It woulda made a lot more sense if the ozone hole opened over say, Detroit, Dusseldorf, Moscow, etc. If hair products were like totally the cause, dude, then like the ozone hole shoulda totally opened over the San Fernando Valley.

And now the flavor of the month is global warming.

I was watching the History Channel last night. They had a 2 hour segment about the Sahara. The show started with a segment about the Sahara in prehistoric times. How it was once a savannah area. Satellite photos show ancient lakes and riverbeds, while archaeological digs find pollens from plants that can't survive in the desert. Funny thing - The Experts said that once, there was even more heat on the Sahara. This additional heat created additional weather activity which created things like thunderstorms, etc. The area was wetter, greener, and actually cooler because of the increased moisture.

The fact is we had an Ice Age on this planet. Further, there are remains of tropical plants in places like Alaska - wonder how much global warming would be required for Alaska to have tropical plants. Oh, and BTW, Alaska is having a rather cold winter this year, I hear.

And what caused that Ice Age & Global warm up? Was it cavemen with their fires and pre-historical industries? Global warming. So easy a caveman could do it. Could it possibly be that the earth was/is going thru a cycle? That the planet is not a stable, always constant weather environment? That, far and away, seems like the most resonable explanation.

still no reason to start polluting the planet cause some people got it wrong .........I want some green grass , blue skies , clean water , for my kids to enjoy .........

[alkemical]

Algae-Based Fuels Set to Bloom (http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=18138)


"...The theoretical potential is clear. Algae can be grown in open ponds or sealed in clear tubes, and it can produce far more oil per acre than soybeans, a source of oil for biodiesel. Algae can also clean up waste by processing nitrogen from wastewater and carbon dioxide from power plants. What's more, it can be grown on marginal lands useless for ordinary crops, and it can use water from salt aquifers that is not useful for drinking or agriculture. "Algae have the potential to produce a huge amount of oil," says Kathe Andrews-Cramer, the technical lead researcher for biofuels and bioenergy programs at Sandia National Laboratories, in Albuquerque, NM. "We could replace certainly all of our diesel fuel with algal-derived oils, and possibly replace a lot more than that." ..."



*cough cough*

lol

[alkemical]

I just don't understand how difficult it is to understand that it's a COMBINATION of both a natural cycle, and an accelerant related problem.

You pollute enough, it messes up with the earths vastly complicated ecosystem that also effects weather. I mean it's aiken to eating a ton of fast food. Eventually - organs fail. Even though it's a cycle of aging and changing.

Damn hermetics - "as above so below"

[spdirty]

Yeah practice what you preach . Stop indoor plumming , Start ****ting in a bucket, it will save you money on City water and sewage , then come back and tell me how good it is

Did you know that Jack Bauer's dad composts his own shlt? Doesn't even have running water in his toilets.

[spdirty]

I just don't understand how difficult it is to understand that it's a COMBINATION of both a natural cycle, and an accelerant related problem.

You can't do that!!!!!! Get off the damn fence and pick a side ya goddamn moderate!;D

[Spider]

Did you know that Jack Bauer's dad composts his own shlt? Doesn't even have running water in his toilets.

who is Jack Bauer ?

[spdirty]

who is Jack Bauer ?

last guy who said that had his testicles removed with a plastic spoon.

[alkemical]

You can't do that!!!!!! Get off the damn fence and pick a side ya goddamn moderate!;D


Seriously - i mean - it's sad. People take some need to "belong" and project into this bigger-than-life thing to fill a hole they have. That's my issue with the polarization->galvinizaton->frictionalization process that is going on in American culture.

[RaiderH8r]

Not per capita and the EU emits far less pollutants than the U.S.







http://www.finfacts.ie/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/1718/gdpcf1.jpg

The US GDP accounts for roughly 25% of worldwide GDP, about the same as our emissions. That's 300 million people accounting for 25% of GDP.

My point is that the EU wants a chunk of that GDP, and emissions standards to hamstring the US economy is their window of opportunity. Furthermore, if we accept the global warming premise as well as the premise that CO2 is the driving factor, as a global issue how is a single nation solution going to address the problem? How is it justifiable to put such a hinderence on the US economy when, with the exception of Sweden and England, no other country has come close to their Kyoto standards?

I've heard the rebuttal that the US should be leading the way and our lack of involvement in Kyoto is the reason those nations failed. I disagree, those nations failed because the economics of the situation are untenable. As is being demonstrated by China and India, environmentalism is a luxury of those who can afford it. Food and shelter come first.

If the Kyoto nations truly wanted the US to take the protocols seriously their success would have gone a long way to encouraging US involvement. As it stands, Kyoto and emissions protocols are clearly an attempt to put the brakes on US GDP to level the playing field in their eyes. And, since they're all socialists, that is viewed as an ideal solution for a problem they perceive.

[Spider]

last guy who said that had his testicles removed with a plastic spoon.

Jack Bauer =Teddy Brushi ?

[spdirty]

Seriously - i mean - it's sad. People take some need to "belong" and project into this bigger-than-life thing to fill a hole they have. That's my issue with the polarization->galvinizaton->frictionalization process that is going on in American culture.

yep. All I know is that I don't know. I put up a column that I thought made some pretty damn good points but I don't know for sure if that guy is correct, yet i find it hard to believe that we were the sole cause of all this stuff.

[spdirty]

Jack Bauer =Teddy Brushi ?

No. Jack Bauer>Teddy Brushi and Chuck Norris.

BUT...

John Elway>everyone.

[Spider]

No. Jack Bauer>Teddy Brushi and Chuck Norris.

BUT...

John Elway>everyone.

agreed , but I never heard of Jack Bauer .........

[spdirty]

agreed , but I never heard of Jack Bauer .........

well you better unf**k youself and start at season 1, so you may realize the greatness that is Jack Bauer.

Did you know that he once saved America while on heroine?

K I gotta go earn my paycheck...see you guys in a couple hours.

[Spider]

season 1 ?

[spdirty]

yeah. Season 1. Go get it. And join the Jack Bauer fan club before he murders you.

[Spider]

yeah. Season 1. Go get it.

season 1 of what ? .......... titles would be helpfull here

[spdirty]

24

[Spider]

24

Oh ......... I think I have seen a preview of that here and there

[spdirty]

Oh ......... I think I have seen a preview of that here and there

Best show ever.

[Spider]

Best show ever.
I dont care too much for what comes out of Hollywood
, last time I watched something on Prime time was a show called Will and grace . I didnt even watch it to the end ......... I did enjoy NYPD blue when it came out

[Spider]

I do like Reba though and the Fresh prince of Bel Air , though Fresh Prince got old

[RaiderH8r]

I do like Reba though and the Fresh prince of Bel Air , though Fresh Prince got old

Quit f***in about and get on board the Jack Bauer Power Hour. Watching 24 on DVD is awesome, it sucks you in pretty fast and moves at a furious pace. My favorite bit of trivia is that the guy playing David Palmer is the same guy that played Pedro Cerrano (sp?) in Major League. "Hats for bats. Keep bats warm. Gracias" or this gem "Jesus, I like him very much, but he no help with curveball"

[Spider]

Quit ****in about and get on board the Jack Bauer Power Hour. Watching 24 on DVD is awesome, it sucks you in pretty fast and moves at a furious pace. My favorite bit of trivia is that the guy playing David Palmer is the same guy that played Pedro Cerrano (sp?) in Major League. "Hats for bats. Keep bats warm. Gracias" or this gem "Jesus, I like him very much, but he no help with curveball"

LOL . I saw major league , it is very bad to steal Jo boos rum ;D

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The US GDP accounts for roughly 25% of worldwide GDP, about the same as our emissions. That's 300 million people accounting for 25% of GDP.

My point is that the EU wants a chunk of that GDP, and emissions standards to hamstring the US economy is their window of opportunity. Furthermore, if we accept the global warming premise as well as the premise that CO2 is the driving factor, as a global issue how is a single nation solution going to address the problem? How is it justifiable to put such a hinderence on the US economy when, with the exception of Sweden and England, no other country has come close to their Kyoto standards?

I've heard the rebuttal that the US should be leading the way and our lack of involvement in Kyoto is the reason those nations failed. I disagree, those nations failed because the economics of the situation are untenable. As is being demonstrated by China and India, environmentalism is a luxury of those who can afford it. Food and shelter come first.

If the Kyoto nations truly wanted the US to take the protocols seriously their success would have gone a long way to encouraging US involvement. As it stands, Kyoto and emissions protocols are clearly an attempt to put the brakes on US GDP to level the playing field in their eyes. And, since they're all socialists, that is viewed as an ideal solution for a problem they perceive.
The EU, as a whole has a larger GDP than the U.S and pollutes far less. No matter how republicans spin it we're ****ting in our beds as well as all over the world in the name of the dollar.

[RaiderH8r]

The EU, as a whole has a larger GDP than the U.S and pollutes far less. No matter how republicans spin it we're ****ting in our beds as well as all over the world in the name of the dollar.

The EU is 13 independent nations. BFD. The EU also relies heavily on nuclear power. Poops I did it again. I'm for nuclear power, hows about you?

[RaiderH8r]

LOL . I saw major league , it is very bad to steal Jo boos rum ;D

Up yer butt jobu.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The EU is 13 independent nations. BFD. The EU also relies heavily on nuclear power. Poops I did it again. I'm for nuclear power, hows about you?Against it. No reason we should even think about it, can't ever get rid of the waste and no one wants it. Plus it costs twice as much to build a plant as it does a coal plant. We will have 0 emission coal technology on a large scale basis within one generation.

[Spider]

The EU is 13 independent nations. BFD. The EU also relies heavily on nuclear power. Poops I did it again. I'm for nuclear power, hows about you?

Iam for Nuke power , and Coal ....... Wind , Solar , fossil , we need energy , I drive truck in and out of oil patches , I understand better then most of what is going on , But still no excuse for pollution , if you cant do a job right , then dont do the damn thing at all ......... as for Nuke waste , we have Arizona for that .....Personaly I think we send a bunch of it in a rocket headed right for the sun ......

[Taco John]

Once we have advanced to the point of knowing how to deal with Nuclear waste, then I'll be in favor of Nuclear technology. I think we're not too far off. Advances in nanotechnology should help solve many of our nuclear issues.

[Spider]

Once we have advanced to the point of knowing how to deal with Nuclear waste, then I'll be in favor of Nuclear technology. I think we're not too far off. Advances in nanotechnology should help solve many of our nuclear issues.

Package it on Spongebob squarepants toys , tell them it is glow in dark ;D

[Bronco Bob]

Some leftists see it as their religion and anyone who might offer a differint viewpoint or evidence that states otherwise is a heretic and needs to be cast out of the scientific community. Example, here is a differing viewpoint. I don't know if this guy is right or not, I'm not a scientist, but he does make some real good points. And instead of looking at this article objectively, some on the board will cast it as junk science and get their panties in a fret.Me personally, I don't think we as humans are responsible for it, but to be honest, I am not an expert, scientist, nor do I pay enough attention to it to offer a real informed opinion. Just wish the attitude from the "man causes global warming and anyone who doesn't agree is a goddamn bastard" crowd would stop being so silly and acknowledge that it is not written in stone that man does cause it. For me, if man is the cause, fine. Lets do something about it. But take a look at the other side for once and come to a conclusion yourself, instead of lapping up whatever Algore gives you.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.


What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

I did not see one single scientific fact in this. No charts, no graphs, no math proofs. Just a lot of "I am right and they are picking on me." Sorry, but this is the very definition of a crackpot.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I did not see one single scientific fact in this. No charts, no graphs, no math proofs. Just a lot of "I am right and they are picking on me." Sorry, but this is the very definition of a crackpot.There is no peer reviewed science that Bush backers or republicans in general can point to denies man's role in global warming that I'm aware of.

[Bronco Bob]

I think the clear point here is that environmental causes are secondary to putting food on the table, so to speak. Environmental causes are undertaken by those with the luxury to do so.


The point people are missing is if something isn't done about climate change
there won't be food on the table. Because the world will become a hot
desert where nothing will grow. At 140 degrees trees die. Also more
land will be under water. Kiss off Florida, New York, London, the Netherlands,
Venice, and most other seaside areas where most people live now.

[Bronco Bob]

Funny, in the 70s, they told us that all the pollution in the atmosphere was going to led to global cooling, with the most extreme example being the "Nuclear Winter" scenario. The Experts were pondering when the next, man-induced, ice age would follow.




Who is this they? I keep hearing this from the Climate Change doubters.
But ever chart I have ever seen on Global Warming shows a steady increase
starting at the industrial age. I was an adult during the 70's, and I never
heard any claims about Gloabal Cooling during that time.



Then we had the 80s, where we were destroying the ozone with hair products and MickeyD's containers. It was never clearly explained why the ozone hole opened over Antartica - the area on the planet furtherest from the northern hemisphere where most of the population and an even larger percentage of the industry is based. It woulda made a lot more sense if the ozone hole opened over say, Detroit, Dusseldorf, Moscow, etc. If hair products were like totally the cause, dude, then like the ozone hole shoulda totally opened over the San Fernando Valley.




Because the air is thinner over the poles and so this is the first place to go.
Global Warming and damage to the ozone layer aren't mutually exclusive.
In fact many types of freons are also strong greenhouse gases.



The fact is we had an Ice Age on this planet. Further, there are remains of tropical plants in places like Alaska - wonder how much global warming would be required for Alaska to have tropical plants. Oh, and BTW, Alaska is having a rather cold winter this year, I hear.

And what caused that Ice Age & Global warm up? Was it cavemen with their fires and pre-historical industries? Global warming. So easy a caveman could do it. Could it possibly be that the earth was/is going thru a cycle? That the planet is not a stable, always constant weather environment? That, far and away, seems like the most resonable explanation.

The fact is the ice ages took thousands of years to crank up and abate.
Climate changes that took thousands of years before are now happening
in only decades.

[Bronco Bob]

Once we have advanced to the point of knowing how to deal with Nuclear waste, then I'll be in favor of Nuclear technology. I think we're not too far off. Advances in nanotechnology should help solve many of our nuclear issues.

Nuclear fusion (converting hydrogen into helium) produces no radioactive
byproducts and the oceans are filled with hydrogen. Why isn't there
a Manhatten type project going on to build a working fusion power plant?

[Spider]

Nuclear fusion (converting hydrogen into helium) produces no radioactive
byproducts and the oceans are filled with hydrogen. Why isn't there
a Manhatten type project going on to build a working fusion power plant?

good question , I would support that energy source