Rice on Climate Change

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Seems it's not only the nut bag Libs who are discussing the climate change issue these days. It's interesting that Rice isn't calling the issue a HOAX.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070927/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/global_warming;_ylt=Ak6LZDwEjAVjB0QCPzRIro8E1vAI
Rice urges nations to find cleaner fuels By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged the world's biggest polluters Thursday to find ways to shift toward energy sources that reduce global warming, without harming their economies.
She made clear the U.S. preference for voluntary measures, determined by each nation, to help stabilize concentrations of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases that are heating the atmosphere like a greenhouse.
"Let me emphasize that this is not a one-size-fits-all effort," Rice said at the start of a two-day climate meeting called by President Bush. "Though united by common goals and collective responsibilities, all nations should tackle climate change in the ways that they deem best."
Rice said the challenge of global climate change depends on working with businesses to develop cleaner-burning cars and other new technologies without starving national economies of the energy they need to grow.
"Managing the status quo is simply not an adequate response," she said. "We must cut the Gordian knot of fossil fuels, carbon emissions and economic activity. This current system is no longer sustainable, and we must transcend it entirely through a revolution in energy technology."
The United States has lined up with China, India and other major polluters in opposition to the mandatory cuts in Earth-warming greenhouse gases sought by the United Nations and European countries under the Kyoto Protocol. The meeting is an attempt to bridge the differences between industrialized and fast-developing nations, none of which wants to compromise economic growth.
About 70 demonstrators from Greenpeace and other environmental groups gathered Thursday outside the State Department, where dozens were arrested for refusing to leave the premise after two hours of protest. The activists called the conference a "fraud" for not encouraging mandatory cuts in greenhouse gasses.
"I'm here to protest the fact that we are having a climate conference when we should have been signing the Kyoto agreement," said Lauren Siegel, 23, from New York, N.Y., as she was loaded into a police van. "This is a diversion," she said of the conference.
Though the meeting includes Britain, France, Germany and other nations in the Kyoto accord, many European officials expressed concern that Bush's meeting would sidetrack the U.N. negotiations that have been the main forum for addressing global warming.
"We can't do this on the basis of talking about talking or setting goals to set goals," John Ashton, a special representative on climate change for the British foreign secretary, said in an interview. "We know that a voluntary approach to global warming is about as effective as a voluntary speed limit sign in the road. We don't just need an approach that works; we need an approach that works very quickly."
A White House statement said the meeting will emphasize creating more diplomatic processes to find a solution to global warming, rather than setting firm goals for reducing carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for heating up the atmosphere.
The nations summoned by Bush will seek agreement on how they might set their own strategies beyond 2012, when the U.N.-brokered Kyoto Protocol expires, but also could include "a long-term global goal," the statement says.
Despite the emphasis on bureaucracy, James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council of Environmental Quality, told participants: "This has to be about more than presentations."
Bush's meeting notably includes the fast-emerging economies whose exclusion from the group of industrialized nations participating in Kyoto has been cited by his administration as reasons for rejecting that international climate accord.
"This relatively small group of countries holds a key to tackling a big part of the problem," said Yvo de Boer, the top U.N. climate official.
Yet Bush also has competed for attention with the climate change summit that was held Monday in New York City at which U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned 80 world leaders that "the time for doubt has passed" and urged fast action to save future generations from potentially ruinous effects of global warming.
As they consider ways to curb greenhouse gases, developing nations do not want to give up ground toward industrializing — and meeting basic human needs.
"For a developing country, the main task is to reduce poverty," Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of China's national development and reform commission, said Wednesday.
Mexico's environment minister agreed. "We have always to bear in mind that half our population is at the poverty line," said Juan Rafael Elvira Quesada. "We are also extremely concerned about the consequences, the adverse effects of climate change."

[Old Texan]

Rice and Bush are calling for sensible meetings and plans to deal with the environment. If the greenpeace nuts outside the door would shut up long enough to listen, they my understand that everyone can work together to better the environment.
Again part of what a lot of folks have been trying to emphasis, work together to make things happen. Don't spread lies and point fingers demanding all fossil fuel use end immediately.
It will be interesting to see if the biggest complainers can actually act civil enough to listen and participate. Many of them are to stubborn or stupid about dealing with what they claim is their "passionate" project.
I'd like to see the term "Global Warning" removed and focus on what the topic really is: Environmental Responsibility

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Rice and Bush are calling for sensible meetings and plans to deal with the environment. If the greenpeace nuts outside the door would shut up long enough to listen, they my understand that everyone can work together to better the environment.
Again part of what a lot of folks have been trying to emphasis, work together to make things happen. Don't spread lies and point fingers demanding all fossil fuel use end immediately.
It will be interesting to see if the biggest complainers can actually act civil enough to listen and participate. Many of them are to stubborn or stupid about dealing with what they claim is their "passionate" project.
I'd like to see the term "Global Warning" removed and focus on what the topic really is: Environmental Responsibility
"Let me emphasize that this is not a one-size-fits-all effort,"
"Though united by common goals and collective responsibilities, all nations should tackle climate change in the ways that they deem best."
Two very sensible comments by Rice

[never_fast_enuf]

I don't think anyone alive isn't for cleaner air.
A White House statement said the meeting will emphasize creating more diplomatic processes to find a solution to global warming, rather than setting firm goals for reducing carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for heating up the atmosphere.
I am all for continuing to explore global warming. Never said I wasn't. I am against knee jerk reactive debilitative measures aimed at solving a problem that at best, we know almost nothing about. AT WORST, A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST.
I say we start with China first as far as pollution goes.

[centerhill condor]

the first thing we could do is build 70 nuclear power plants. That would be enough to do away with coal as an electric power source. Additionally, we would create literally thousands of high paying high skilled jobs with outstanding benefits for mankind.
$83 barrel oil is gonna make the world a different place for internal combustion. Renewable or CO2 neutral fuels are in the pipeline.
As an aside, for every $4 barrel increase in oil increases the value of Saudi reserves by $1trillion...a country with the population of Cali. The economics of energy are virtually incomprehensible.
Just a thought.
CC

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I don't think anyone alive isn't for cleaner air.
A White House statement said the meeting will emphasize creating more diplomatic processes to find a solution to global warming, rather than setting firm goals for reducing carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for heating up the atmosphere.
I am all for continuing to explore global warming. Never said I wasn't. I am against knee jerk reactive debilitative measures aimed at solving a problem that at best, we know almost nothing about. AT WORST, A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST.
Agreed. Damn, a new record. twice in one day. :) :)

[Old Texan]

the first thing we could do is build 70 nuclear power plants. That would be enough to do away with coal as an electric power source. Additionally, we would create literally thousands of high paying high skilled jobs with outstanding benefits for mankind.
$83 barrel oil is gonna make the world a different place for internal combustion. Renewable or CO2 neutral fuels are in the pipeline.
As an aside, for every $4 barrel increase in oil raises the value of Saudi reserves increase by $1trillion...a country with the population of Cali. The economics of energy are virtually incomprehensible.
Just a thought.
CC
70 Nuke plants? That would really spread the Greenpeace protestors awful thin........:devil:
Is there a power source those folks approve of?

[centerhill condor]

Is there a power source those folks approve of?
yea, hot air!
CC

[ULTRA26 # 1]

70 Nuke plants? That would really spread the Greenpeace protestors awful thin........:devil:
Is there a power source those folks approve of?
Not too many that's for sure.

[donzi5150]

I saw a story on FOX earlier today about the wind generators (wind mills) in California and how the tree huggers are complaining that it blocks the views of the trees.......when are these idiots going to understand that there is some sacrifice made with all energy sources? I hate seeing the solar panels on roofs but I don't complain.....I catch a lot of Red Fish along the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and I don't complain......they are just never satisfied:jawdrop:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I saw a story on FOX earlier today about the wind generators (wind mills) in California and how the tree huggers are complaining that it blocks the views of the trees.......when are these idiots going to understand that there is some sacrifice made with all energy sources? I hate seeing the solar panels on roofs but I don't complain.....I catch a lot of Red Fish along the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and I don't complain......they are just never satisfied:jawdrop:
Hard to believe

[QuickJet]

What is so wrong with "global Warming"?
The UN's independant academy of Scientists said that at it's current rate the the oceans would only rise .50mm in 100 years.
So what's the problem?

[centerhill condor]

how the tree huggers are complaining that it blocks the views of the trees.......:jawdrop:
TVA literally counts the number of birds and bats killed by the big blades. Aint that some sh!t! The endangered birds are gonna keep us from having windmills...can't rednecks just eat the birds and we all get along?
CC

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Yea, the lemming kool-aid is spreadin g it's poison.
The problem is, the Emporer STILL has no clothes.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Hard to believe
Really?
Ted Kennedy (yes, Senator Edward) keeps blocking one that HE would have to look at at one of his "compounds".
Also here in Ks, a SECOND wind farm out west has been stopped dead in it's tracks, by the NIMBY'S.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Really?
Ted Kennedy (yes, Senator Edward) keeps blocking one that HE would have to look at at one of his "compounds".
Also here in Ks, a SECOND wind farm out west has been stopped dead in it's tracks, by the NIMBY'S.
Yes. It's hard ro believe. We have a few wind generators here in CA. :D

[never_fast_enuf]

What is so wrong with "global Warming"?
The UN's independant academy of Scientists said that at it's current rate the the oceans would only rise .50mm in 100 years.
So what's the problem?
That's just it...we don't know if it is really a problem or not. How do we know that we are currently experiencing earths optimal temperature? Wouldn't there be many benefits of the earth slightly warming?
Just too many questions out there for me. I am usually a "glass half full" kind of a guy but when I see so many politicians lined up to take our money over this issue, red flags pop up all over the place.

[Old Texan]

In a world without terrorists or vandals, the esiest solution would be nuclear. Not from a standpoint of many large plants but small generators within communities. A friend who built nuclear submarines once told me a reactor used to power a sub could sustain several hundred homes, a large mall, or a large office building.
The elimination of the power grid would go along way towards reducing costs and reduce environmental impact.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

That's just it...we don't know if it is really a problem or not. How do we know that we are currently experiencing earths optimal temperature? Wouldn't there be many benefits of the earth slightly warming?
Just too many questions out there for me. I am usually a "glass half full" kind of a guy but when I see so many politicians lined up to take our money over this issue, red flags pop up all over the place.
We do know that less pollution is to our advantage and that producing more energy with less fuel is a win win for individuals To realize these two goals requires R&D. The question is who is going bankroll the needed R&D. The problem, as I see it, is this. Energy suppliers aren't financially motivated in the area of R&D and the American people understandably don't trust that the Feds can properly manage this task.
Federal requirements on Car Makers have done wonders to help clean up the air where I come from. However, many view most Govt intervention as loss of freedom, and as such, reject Govt control in any regard.
Do we reward energy suppliers, with tax incentives, for successful R&D? Do we do the same thing with car makers? Do we allow the Feds to attempt to stabilize the cost of oil? There are many possibilities most of which require some Govt involvement. The same Govt that many don't trust.
Frustrating at least.

[centerhill condor]

I have an idea...let the market work out all those "hard questions"..VHS vs. Beta, gas vs. electric, coal vs. nuke, solid vs. liquid, etc.
The big problems facing our country are not technical, rather, they're political. That's 'cause, IMHO, the gov't has its finger in too many pies.
Henry Ford didn't have tax breaks. He saw an opportunity to make a buck and went for it. Same for the Du Ponts, Hunt bros, Westinghouse, Morgans, etc. In the last 30 years we've confused a tax incentive with a profit..they are not the same thing.
You want to stimulate the economy and encourage RND? Cut corporate taxes at the fed level. The country and mankind suffer for high corporate taxes...
CC

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I have an idea...let the market work out all those "hard questions"..VHS vs. Beta, gas vs. electric, coal vs. nuke, solid vs. liquid, etc.
The big problems facing our country are not technical, rather, they're political. That's 'cause, IMHO, the gov't has its finger in too many pies.
Henry Ford didn't have tax breaks. He saw an opportunity to make a buck and went for it. Same for the Du Ponts, Hunt bros, Westinghouse, Morgans, etc. In the last 30 years we've confused a tax incentive with a profit..they are not the same thing.
You want to stimulate the economy and encourage RND? Cut corporate taxes at the fed level. The country and mankind suffer for high corporate taxes...
CC
Sorry but this type of "shoot from the hip" response is one of the problems. Where is the profit in using less energy. This is the 21st century and not the beginning of the 20th. This Country thrives on PROFIT. Not much incentive for an oil company to develop ways to use less oil. Oil companies sell oil. This isn't rocket science.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Bush: Climate change progress must be measurable
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush urged top polluting nations on Friday to set a measurable way to cut greenhouse gas emissions but showed no sign of softening his opposition to mandatory targets on global warming.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070928/pl_nm/climate_usa_dc_17;_ylt=ArWzkqiXVZCduPhKsRjwCNoE1vA I
Why is the President or Dr. Rice even discussing something that absolutely doesn't exist? Come on Smokin, let's hear it.

[Old Texan]

We do know that less pollution is to our advantage and that producing more energy with less fuel is a win win for individuals To realize these two goals requires R&D. The question is who is going bankroll the needed R&D. The problem, as I see it, is this. Energy suppliers aren't financially motivated in the area of R&D and the American people understandably don't trust that the Feds can properly manage this task.
Federal requirements on Car Makers have done wonders to help clean up the air where I come from. However, many view most Govt intervention as loss of freedom, and as such, reject Govt control in any regard.
Do we reward energy suppliers, with tax incentives, for successful R&D? Do we do the same thing with car makers? Do we allow the Feds to attempt to stabilize the cost of oil? There are many possibilities most of which require some Govt involvement. The same Govt that many don't trust.
Frustrating at least.
We've had this discussion before and you always seem to gloss over it. The power companies are doing R&D. To adhere to Federal madates to clean up emissions, they are upgrading fossil fuel plants to reduce emissions with scubbers and SCR technology. The big boiler manufacturers are in constant change with better and more efficient systems.
One of the problems I see is the government bureaucrats who like the media don't appear to recognize or acknowledge the great efforts being taken to better reduce the emmissions and educate the public to the fact things are being done.
Go ask 10 people what SCR means and ask the same 10 people who the new participants are on Dancing with the Stars or the new broadcast team for Monday Nite Fooball and you will plainly see where the general public's priorities are and where the profit / ratings driven media put their research.
Pretty sad I'd say.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

We've had this discussion before and you always seem to gloss over it. The power companies are doing R&D. To adhere to Federal madates to clean up emissions, they are upgrading fossil fuel plants to reduce emissions with scubbers and SCR technology. The big boiler manufacturers are in constant change with better and more efficient systems.
One of the problems I see is the government bureaucrats who like the media don't appear to recognize or acknowledge the great efforts being taken to better reduce the emmissions and educate the public to the fact things are being done.
Go ask 10 people what SCR means and ask the same 10 people who the new participants are on Dancing with the Stars or the new broadcast team for Monday Nite Fooball and you will plainly see where the general public's priorities are and where the profit / ratings driven media put their research.
Pretty sad I'd say.
I do recall the exchange we had on this issue. You seemed then, as you do now, more knowledgeable than most in areas related to burning coal. When you brought up SCR before I hadn't heard specifically of Selective Catalytic Reduction. I believe that R&D continues to be needed with regard to generating more power with less fuel. I agree that we have made great progress in the area of emmisions.
I'm waiting for Smokin to explain why President Bush and Dr. Rice are discussing the issue that he has stated doesn't exist.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Come on Smokin, let's hear it.
Exactly what are you after ultra?
Since a couple of this countries politicians who have denied GW is man-made, are finally bowing to POLITICAL pressure and going along, do you want me to change MY stance?
Not going to happen.
Come on Smokin, let's hear it.
Exactly what are you after ultra?
Where have the PROBLEMS with Anthopologic Global Warming Theory gone to?
Have Pres. Bush and Dr Rice found some new evidence that suddenly DOES make it real? What is this new "evidence"? I'd LOVE to see it.
Come on Smokin, let's hear it.
Exactly what are you after ultra?
Since perhaps the President who caused MMGW by not ratifying the Kyoto protocol has finally "bought in" to the pap-smear known now as "Catastrophic Climate Change", the same one you proclaim to believe wholeheartedly in, I am supposed to reverse my stance, even tho the FACTS HAVE NOT CHANGED?
I'm waiting for Smokin to explain why President Bush and Dr. Rice are discussing the issue that he has stated doesn't exist.
Is it explained well enough yet?
Political Expediency has carried the day, as opposed to scientific and historical FACT.
How come YOU keep ignoring the FACT that the ENTIRE US CO2 EMISSION is 0.0027% of WORLDIDE emission?
If the US stops ALL CO2 production (including you & I (and 300 million others) breathing), worldwide CO2 production drops 0.0027%!

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Exactly what are you after ultra?
Since a couple of this countries politicians who have denied GW is man-made, are finally bowing to POLITICAL pressure and going along, do you want me to change MY stance?
Not going to happen.
Exactly what are you after ultra?
Where have the PROBLEMS with Anthopologic Global Warming Theory gone to?
Have Pres. Bush and Dr Rice found some new evidence that suddenly DOES make it real? What is this new "evidence"? I'd LOVE to see it.
Exactly what are you after ultra?
Since perhaps the President who caused MMGW by not ratifying the Kyoto protocol has finally "bought in" to the pap-smear known now as "Catastrophic Climate Change", the same one you proclaim to believe wholeheartedly in, I am supposed to reverse my stance, even tho the FACTS HAVE NOT CHANGED?
Is it explained well enough yet?
Political Expediency has carried the day, as opposed to scientific and historical FACT.
How come YOU keep ignoring the FACT that the ENTIRE US CO2 EMISSION is 0.0027% of WORLDIDE emission?
If the US stops ALL CO2 production (including you & I (and 300 million others) breathing), worldwide CO2 production drops 0.0027%!
I don't expect you to ever admit that there is a possibility that your position might, I said might, be wrong. BTW I'm not ignoring anything.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Then get off your lazy arse and find the evidence that PROVES my position to be wrong.
I have exhaustively dug up the FACTS that show the theory of Man-Made Global Warming to be "questionable" at best. A bald-faced environmentalist and anti-capitolist LIE at worst. You have yet to refute even ONE of these.
You have (in the past) CLAIMED you could locate FACTS that support your position, but in the same sentence, stated it was not worth your time.
"Supporting your position is not worth your time." I wonder if I am the ONLY person who finds THAT position "interesting"? :idea:
I doubt it.
Then, you head off on the ONLY tangent you have, "We should not polute.", instead of staying on-topic trying to support your unsupportable position on "Catastrophic Climate Change" (the latest name for MMGW/AGW).

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I don't expect you to ever admit that there is a possibility that your position might, I said might, be wrong. BTW I'm not ignoring anything.
You are only ignoring the PROBLEMS with Global Warming being Man-Made that I have spent NINE MONTHS throwing in your face.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You are only ignoring the PROBLEMS with Global Warming being Man-Made that I have spent NINE MONTHS throwing in your face.
As I said I'm not ignoring anything. You have thrown your opinion around like you're some sort of authority. Now you have the heads of your political party starting to go along with much of the rest of the world. As I have stated since day one, the jury is still out.
Have a great evening.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Now you have the heads of your political party starting to go along with much of the rest of the world.
The "heads" of most of Europe were "going along" with EUGENICS in the 1920's and '30's (into the '40's).
Did that make it CORRECT? :idea:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The "heads" of most of Europe were "going along" with EUGENICS in the 1920's and '30's (into the '40's).
Did that make it CORRECT? :idea:
Hardly a comparison.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Then get off your lazy arse and find the evidence that PROVES my position to be wrong.
Again, you keep ignoring the above. :idea: :idea: :idea:

[jh4rt]

Doods.
I have seen like 18 gazillion threads with the same theme. What gives? You differ in opine. Neither of you is going to convince the other of their point of view.
the reality is: this is now a political, not scientific issue, subject to opinion and public regard. (Y'know... like should Brit keep her kids?...)
If it were scientific, you could easily isolate the variables, run some simulations and models and prove your theorem. Remember? That's how science works.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND PRESIDENT AND (that jackass) BONO DON'T CREATE REALITY WITH THEIR WHIM.
<-- getting off his soap box now.... -->

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Again, you keep ignoring the above. :idea: :idea: :idea:
Again, not ignoring anythng, except your BS.
Guardsman/Machinist/Scientist/Scholar/Climatologist/Political Analyst/Engineer/Engine Builder, and much, much more.
How do you get your head through the door?

[QuickJet]

Global Warming is nothing more than a religion. It's based on faith and speculation with zero physical evidence.
Like many other religions it comes with a price, a tythe if you will. In the religion of Global Warming the tythe is called a carbon credit.
Please donate to the church to help the cause....http://www.***boat.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

[Old Texan]

Global Warming is nothing more than a religion. It's based on faith and speculation with zero physical evidence.
Like many other religions it comes with a price, a tythe if you will. In the religion of Global Warming the tythe is called a carbon credit.
Please donate to the church to help the cause....http://www.***boat.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif
That's a big "Amen" Brother QuickJet...........

[centerhill condor]

Global Warming is nothing more than a religion. It's based on faith and speculation with zero physical evidence.
Like many other religions it comes with a price, a tythe if you will. In the religion of Global Warming the tythe is called a carbon credit.
Please donate to the church to help the cause....http://www.***boat.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif
well stated, especially for a Monday morning!
CC

[never_fast_enuf]

This is one more reason why I think man made global warming is a joke. It also goes to the issue of the main stream media carrying the water for the left. It can no longer be argued that the main stream media isn't completly biased towords the left...IE democrats.
Weather Stations Giving Bad Global Warming Data -- MSM MIA
By Warner Todd Huston | October 1, 2007 - 04:47 ET
A few months ago, the blogosphere and talk radio were abuzz with the story of how the nation's various weather stations and temperature reading devices have been improperly located or badly constructed and how the data received from these improper devices must be suspected as inaccurate. The MSM briefly mentioned this story but quickly dropped it like the proverbial hot rock. It makes one wonder why?
Since global warming research often uses the suspect data that is gotten from these failed stations, the accuracy of the entire theory must therefore be called into question as its conclusions are derived from likely false data. Still the MSM ignores this explosive story.
But, it is evident that the so-called scientific community has also ignored the arguments in this story as there has yet to be a weather station moved or its location and/or construction reevaluated.
Anthony Watts has a great website detailing the problems with some of these weather stations, but there are far more out there than the ones that Mr. Watts details. He cannot be expected to catch them all, naturally. So, this report details another problematic station. This one is situated in the Bandelier National Monument Park in New Mexico.
http://www.publiusforum.com/publiusbanners_buttons/bandoliercliffs_3.gif
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/10/01/weather-stations-giving-bad-global-warming-data-msm-mia

[never_fast_enuf]

So where is the media on this? They love to preach from the pulpit concerning the earth being destroyed by man...funny, I don't recall seeing anything about this in the left wing MSM.
Al??? Did you place these devices yourself?
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

[ULTRA26 # 1]

This is one more reason why I think man made global warming is a joke. It also goes to the issue of the main stream media carrying the water for the left. It can no longer be argued that the main stream media isn't completly biased towords the left...IE democrats.
Weather Stations Giving Bad Global Warming Data -- MSM MIA
By Warner Todd Huston | October 1, 2007 - 04:47 ET
A few months ago, the blogosphere and talk radio were abuzz with the story of how the nation's various weather stations and temperature reading devices have been improperly located or badly constructed and how the data received from these improper devices must be suspected as inaccurate. The MSM briefly mentioned this story but quickly dropped it like the proverbial hot rock. It makes one wonder why?
Since global warming research often uses the suspect data that is gotten from these failed stations, the accuracy of the entire theory must therefore be called into question as its conclusions are derived from likely false data. Still the MSM ignores this explosive story.
But, it is evident that the so-called scientific community has also ignored the arguments in this story as there has yet to be a weather station moved or its location and/or construction reevaluated.
Anthony Watts has a great website detailing the problems with some of these weather stations, but there are far more out there than the ones that Mr. Watts details. He cannot be expected to catch them all, naturally. So, this report details another problematic station. This one is situated in the Bandelier National Monument Park in New Mexico.
http://www.publiusforum.com/publiusbanners_buttons/bandoliercliffs_3.gif
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/10/01/weather-stations-giving-bad-global-warming-data-msm-mia
There is sufficient scientific evidence world wide to conform that the earth is experiencing a warming trend. The question is whether or not this trend is man made. Living in Southern California most of my life and watching, with my own eyes, the sky getting filled with sh*t, 365 days a year, may make it easier to accept all possibilities. Believing that something is possible is hardly a religion.
So where is the media on this? They love to preach from the pulpit concerning the earth being destroyed by man...funny, I don't recall seeing anything about this in the left wing MSM.
Al??? Did you place these devices yourself?
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
This was all over the media a few months back. I try not to get involved in the politics of this issue and view it from all directions

[never_fast_enuf]

This was all over the media a few months back. I try not to get involved in the politics of this issue and view it from all directions
While I admit that I was a very busy person this spring and summer, I don't recall the main stream media giving this much, if any attention. It is all over the blogesphere but concerning the many gloom and doom "man made" global warming stories the MSM pushes, I would have felt certain 60 minutes...20/20..."insert MSM outlet here" would have pushed and pushed this story as well. I can't seem to find it. Can you point to where CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC...the NYT's...ANY of these covered this story?

[Old Texan]

Believing that something is possible is hardly a religion.
Still struggling with trying to sort out comments intended as humor and sarcasm I see.
Sarcasm smiley- :rolleyes: Watch for this one.......;)
As previously stated we need to completely separate environmental pollution from MMGB in order to stay on track with the "real" issues. When the media and others keep trying to focus on MMGB it detracts from the proven issues that need fixing.
Sensationalism sells ad time but does nothing to fix the pollution issues that are being worked on successfully. What we need is positive attention in order for the man on the street to understand positive gains are being made.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

This was all over the media a few months back. I try not to get involved in the politics of this issue and view it from all directions
While I admit that I was a very busy person this spring and summer, I don't recall the main stream media giving this much, if any attention. It is all over the blogesphere but concerning the many gloom and doom "man made" global warming stories the MSM pushes, I would have felt certain 60 minutes...20/20..."insert MSM outlet here" would have pushed and pushed this story as well. I can't seem to find it. Can you point to where CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC...the NYT's...ANY of these covered this story?
nfe, I think I have mentioned that other than here, I don't spend a bunch of time on blog sites. As I recall, I heard, or read about, the issue of the failed test equipment on/in the news.
Still struggling with trying to sort out comments intended as humor and sarcasm I see.
Sarcasm smiley- :rolleyes: Watch for this one.......;)
As previously stated we need to completely separate environmental pollution from MMGB in order to stay on track with the "real" issues. When the media and others keep trying to focus on MMGB it detracts from the proven issues that need fixing.
Sensationalism sells ad time but does nothing to fix the pollution issues that are being worked on successfully. What we need is positive attention in order for the man on the street to understand positive gains are being made.
No sarcasm. Just ask a born again Christian. No possibilities, just absolutes
I agree that there are positive gains being made but I also believe that the world needs to focus more on developing alternative energy sources.

[Old Texan]

No sarcasm. Just ask a born again Christian. No possibilities, just absolutes
I agree that there are positive gains being made but I also believe that the world needs to focus more on developing alternative energy sources.
I try to avoid "born agains" as completely a possible, most I've encountered are fruitcakes and phony as all hell.
Alternative enery sources are also being resourced as possilbe. It isn't something that can be reliably put into place overnight like many wish to believe. The media once again through their ignorance makes it sound like Dilithium crystals are just over the horizon and we'll all be traveling at warp speed any day now.

[never_fast_enuf]

Alternative enery sources are also being resourced as possilbe. It isn't something that can be reliably put into place overnight like many wish to believe. The media once again through their ignorance makes it sound like Dilithium crystals are just over the horizon and we'll all be traveling at warp speed any day now.
It will take at least 50 years to replace infrastructure once a new viable energy source is found. Think about it...Every single facet of our lives is touched by oil.
Not saying we shouldn't be looking…we should but as you pointed out, it will be years and years before we ever see it…even if it discovered today.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I try to avoid "born agains" as completely a possible, most I've encountered are fruitcakes and phony as all hell.
Alternative enery sources are also being resourced as possilbe. It isn't something that can be reliably put into place overnight like many wish to believe. The media once again through their ignorance makes it sound like Dilithium crystals are just over the horizon and we'll all be traveling at warp speed any day now.
Tex, I agree and understand that implementing new sources of energy isn't something that is going to happen over night. Seems that the more focus that there is on this issue the sooner it might come to pass.
Until something new is on the table, 60 MPG vehicles, like the diesel Honda has coming in 09, won't hurt. :)

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Living in Southern California most of my life and watching, with my own eyes, the sky getting filled with sh*t, 365 days a year,
Again, your proven inability to separate POLUTION from the Catastrophic Climate Change fraud.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Hardly a comparison.
So.................. heads of government supporting a scientifically unsupported theory (Man Made Global Warming) have nothing to do with heads of government supporting a scientifically unsupported theory (Eugenics - a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed).
:idea: :confused: :idea: :confused: :idea: :confused: :idea:

[Boatcop]

Hey! What happened to the Ozone Hole?
Wasn't that the major threat to life as we knew it a decade or so ago?
Remember? We were told that we'd all die of skin cancer and have to live underground? The Antarctic Ice Cap would melt and all the coastal areas would flood? (sound familiar?)
Oh yeah. It was discovered that it was a cyclic weather phenomenon. Sure. There are still people down there measuring and testing and recording, but guess what? It's no worse than it was when it was first discovered in the late 1970's. It's been bigger some years and smaller others. The years that it's been the worst are years with exceptional volcanic activity around the globe.
I was in Antarctica during the winter (their summer) of '77-'78. I spent a lot of time with meteorologists and scientists, including a few days at the South Pole. I never heard one single word about Ozone or a hole in it.
With no data on the Ozone situation before 1979, how can it be determined that WE (Industrialized Nations) caused the hole in the Ozone, since there is no way to determine if it existed or didn't exist before 1978?
Just another of the "Sky is Falling" Chicken Little mentality that is driving the Global Warming scam.
Yes. I believe that the world MAY be in a warming trend. But, as far as I'm concerned, there is no credible evidence to show that human activity or my SUV is contributing to it.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Now now now boatcop, no fair cluttering up the issue with trivial and unimportant history. :rolleyes: :idea: :D
There is hardly a comparison. :D :D
Oh, and, just to keep the facts straight, Ozone is not only a by-product (in the upper atmosphere) of cosmic radiation hitting the atmosphere, but is a by-product (and polutant) of electrical generator and motor USE.
The electrical arcing inside electrical motors and generators creates ozone, and it is a polutant, destructive to rubber products, and hard on the lungs as well. (lightning causes it too)
Change all the vehicles (including SUV's) over to electrical (or hybrid even) and massively INCREASE the level of ozone polution.
Hmmm, "but, electrical cars are a non-poluting panacea!". :jawdrop:
:idea: :idea: :idea:
Yep, sure they are.

[Old Texan]

Again, your proven inability to separate POLUTION from the Catastrophic Climate Change fraud.
The MMGW insinuators inability to do just this is what creates the controversy. And the media treats them as the same issue furthering the push to make MMGW the focus.
I don't know how it can be said any clearer that they are 2 separate issues, 1real, 1 a hyped up money making scheme from the TN snake oil salesman Al G.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The MMGW insinuators inability to do just this is what creates the controversy. And the media treats them as the same issue furthering the push to make MMGW the focus.
I don't know how it can be said any clearer that they are 2 separate issues, 1real, 1 a hyped up money making scheme from the TN snake oil salesman Al G.
The point of this thread wasn't to continue my argument that there may be some relationship between pollution and climate change. The point was to bring to light that leaders of the Republican party have jumped on the climate change band wagon. I guess Republicans buy snake oil too as
they elected Goerge Bush twice. :D

[never_fast_enuf]

Seriously, this global warming thing has NOTHING to do with money...<sarcasim off> :rolleyes:
Coming to a socialist state near you....
Quebec introduces carbon tax, Canada CEOs urge more
Mon Oct 1, 2007 6:39 PM BST
TORONTO, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Quebec province slapped the country's first carbon tax on energy firms on Monday, as Canadian business leaders urged "environmental taxation" to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions.
The tax, proposed more than a year ago, is expected to raise C$200 million ($202 million) a year to fund the province's plans to reduce emissions.
It includes a per-litre levy of 0.8 Canadian cent for gasoline, 0.9 Canadian cent for diesel fuel, 0.96 Canadian cent for light heating oil, and C$8 a tonne for coal.
It wasn't immediately known whether the oil companies, including Petro-Canada (PCA.TO: Quote, Profile , Research) and Imperial Oil (IMO.TO: Quote, Profile , Research), would pass along the cost to consumers.
http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=oilRpt&storyID=2007-10-01T173902Z_01_N01295303_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-QUEBEC-TAX.XML

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Seriously, this global warming thing has NOTHING to do with money...<sarcasim off> :rolleyes:
Coming to a socialist state near you....
Quebec introduces carbon tax, Canada CEOs urge more
Mon Oct 1, 2007 6:39 PM BST
TORONTO, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Quebec province slapped the country's first carbon tax on energy firms on Monday, as Canadian business leaders urged "environmental taxation" to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions.
The tax, proposed more than a year ago, is expected to raise C$200 million ($202 million) a year to fund the province's plans to reduce emissions.
It includes a per-litre levy of 0.8 Canadian cent for gasoline, 0.9 Canadian cent for diesel fuel, 0.96 Canadian cent for light heating oil, and C$8 a tonne for coal.
It wasn't immediately known whether the oil companies, including Petro-Canada (PCA.TO: Quote, Profile , Research) and Imperial Oil (IMO.TO: Quote, Profile , Research), would pass along the cost to consumers.
http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=oilRpt&storyID=2007-10-01T173902Z_01_N01295303_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-QUEBEC-TAX.XML
nfe, I have never suggeeted that the MMGW issue isn't being driven by money. Isn't everything?
And Tex, two issues "my argument that there may be some relationship between pollution and climate change".

[centerhill condor]

Alternative enery sources are also being resourced as possilbe.
It will take at least 50 years to replace infrastructure once a new viable energy source is found.
It will take a while...but 50 years is a little on the long side. How long did Wal-mart, apple, Microsoft, Cisco, etc take to become leaders in markets and industries that didn't exist 20 years ago?
Currently, there is a glut of ethanol and it is causing financial troubles for producers...Now, you think they'll go out without trying to turn this into a profit? You'll be amazed.
Don't let the TV get you down...This is still the most innovative country on the planet.
CC

[never_fast_enuf]

I have no doubt we could do it faster. Capitalism is a wonderful thing and has proven over and over again to be the best system in the world.
That being said, I think our government would figure out a way to screw it up and ruin it for everyone.
If you can't tell, I am more than a little fed up with the Washington crowd right now.:devil: ;)

[centerhill condor]

That being said, I think our government would figure out a way to screw it up and ruin it for everyone.
that's part of how we got here.
Wouldn't the founding fathers be shocked and appalled if they woke up tomorrow?
CC

[ULTRA26 # 1]

that's part of how we got here.
Wouldn't the founding fathers be shocked and appalled if they woke up tomorrow?
CC
Actually I don't think so. Well at least no more so than anyone else from that time period.