Avatar

[RawdogDX]

Blah blah, Does anyone have a problem with Clean Air?  Does anyone not want independence from Mid East oil?  If you saw your child holding their head next to a car's tail pipe would you tell them to stop breathing that crap in?
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9087

What i don't get is why the right wingests act like they were impartial and evaluated the evidence and than decided that global warming was crap.  When anyone who knows anything about evangelicals knows that they rejected the theory on a religious basis from the beginning.  The evangelicals control the GOP, thus you get fed anti-global warming propaganda on fox for the last 15 years and now you are conviced that you were an unbiased observer who weighed all evidence equally and came to your own conclusion.  The evangelicals also have scientist lining up to sign pettitions that evolution is garbage and intelligent design is the only way to go.  Is anyone going to start putting links up to those guys?

That said, I'm not saying i believe humans are causing it.  Although I think the 'the world is too big and complex for us to know' argument is weak

[Hards Alumni]

apparently no one actually clicked the links of the articles I posted the first time.  What is the use in posting the same one again?


Responses to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

97%+ of active, publishing, climatologists, (you know, people who actually study this stuff) said yes.

[RawdogDX]

apparently no one actually clicked the links of the articles I posted the first time.  What is the use in posting the same one again?
Responses to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
97%+ of active, publishing, climatologists, (you know, people who actually study this stuff) said yes.

only 6% of scientists are republicans, because it is an anti-science party that doesn't accept new information once their minds are set, not that dems are free of that.
I was just talking to a friend (green party guy) who was interviewing for a job where most his coworkers would be gay, he was talking to one of them about how he thought everyone should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy as long as they aren't hurting anyone.  The interviewer was pushing the conversation forward saying that is true about, gay marriage, drug use, prostitution, swingers, gambling, abortions, etc.  Than my friend mentioned owning guns and the guy said "i don't know about that."  Why the switch in mentality?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Blah blah, Does anyone have a problem with Clean Air?  Does anyone not want independence from Mid East oil?  If you saw your child holding their head next to a car's tail pipe would you tell them to stop breathing that crap in?
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9087

What i don't get is why the right wingests act like they were impartial and evaluated the evidence and than decided that global warming was crap.  When anyone who knows anything about evangelicals knows that they rejected the theory on a religious basis from the beginning.  The evangelicals control the GOP, thus you get fed anti-global warming propaganda on fox for the last 15 years and now you are conviced that you were an unbiased observer who weighed all evidence equally and came to your own conclusion.  The evangelicals also have scientist lining up to sign pettitions that evolution is garbage and intelligent design is the only way to go.  Is anyone going to start putting links up to those guys?

That said, I'm not saying i believe humans are causing it.  Although I think the 'the world is too big and complex for us to know' argument is weak

Yes, absolutely want clean air but I also want a vibrant economy.  You can't run it on pixie dust.

Wind and solar are massively inefficient and cannot do the job alone, not even close.  Without subsidies, they are huge money losers as well, but even if we say the subsidies are ok, they cannot create the output.

If I want clean air, then why not nuclear?  I'm all of nuclear but for some reason none of the politicians want to go for this.

As for Mid East oil, hell I've been saying that forever.  I'm the son of a Petroleum Geologist \ Geophysicist who spent most of his career with the oil companies. I was schooled on this heavily...he was a scientist afterall.  We have craploads of oil at our disposal IN THIS COUNTRY that we refuse to touch.  We have more oil shale in the USA than any country in the world except Canada.  We have more natural gas deposits than ANY country in the world.   There is plenty of energy here in the states to be had that would get us off the Middle East if we ever decided to actually do something about it.

At the end of the day, I believe in renewable energies (I have solar panels myself) but they CANNOT do the job alone.  Nuclear is here, but we won't do it.  Clean coal is here, but we won't do it.  Oil, natural gas, Oil shale is here, but we won't do it.

Wind and solar cannot do it alone and at some point people are going to wake up to this.  And just wait until we put more and more electric cars on the grid, where do people think that electricity is going to come from?

Sometimes people don't think all the way through.

[ChicosBailBonds]

When you went down the rat hole of evangelicals, you lost me....just tired canards but not surprising.  Why did you turn this into a political debate, it wasn't until you just did.  And yes, the world is very complex and to think we have a handle on it is pure lunacy.  We can't tell what the weather will be like 10 days from now, we can't determine when earthquakes will happen, we can't tell for certain when a volcano will erupt, we sure as hell can't pinpoint down something as complex as climate and all the variables that go into it (sun, oceans, atmosphere, gases, etc).

And Hards, there are many people that study climate and the affects on the earth, not just climatologists.  This is the latest change of many by the group wanting to put this all on humans.  In the past, when certain groups were pushing hard on the global warming agenda, all scientists in related fields were included....geologists, climatalogists, atmospheric scientists, hydrologists, oceanographers, meterologists, etc, etc. 

Then when more and more of these other fields started saying HANG ON A SECOND, the folks pushing this stuff started to exclude their opinions.  Now, the latest fetish is to say only climatologists opinions count. This is also about when GLOBAL WARMING was changed to CLIMATE CHANGE.  Conveniently.

As my dad used to tell me, one large volcano eruption changes the climate for years....so why are geologists opinions no longer included in these little polls?  It's silly.  The climate is complex beyond belief and includes disciplines of many sciences, not just climatology.  But it's important to note that the father of Climatology, Dr. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was damn clear that he felt all of this was cyclical.

[ChicosBailBonds]

apparently no one actually clicked the links of the articles I posted the first time.  What is the use in posting the same one again?


Responses to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

97%+ of active, publishing, climatologists, (you know, people who actually study this stuff) said yes.

Yup, 75 of 77 they chose to survey.  I'm glad you stated ACTIVE and PUBLISHING (i.e.....need their grant money to stay in business).   

Isn't it ironic as hell how many change their tune when the retire and don't need the money any more.  LOL

Of course there have also been over 50,000 scientists that signed on to say humans aren't a MAJOR contributor to climate change.....a factor, but not a MAJOR factor.

[RawdogDX]

A new development in wind power allows for it to be done.  We've figured out how to tie turbines to balloons, teathered to the ground allowing for the turbine to be high enough in the air that it will be able to put out a consistent rate of power anywhere in the country.

I feel like nuclear is a step backwards because:
A: we'll need to build large plants.  (we can gradually add wind and solar to out grid in 1000's of places)
B: we'll need to deal with waste.
C: we'll need to revamp the grid.  (less important with other solutions because power won't be traveling the same distances.)

Yes it would require gov subsidies to start putting solar panels on office and gov buildings.  But that would be a better use of stimulus $ than many of the current projects.  Tax benefits based on Leed certification would also be nice.

Back to the original topic.  Avatar was awesome.  I would argue that the 'propaganda' in the film is overstated by some posters in this thread.

[Hards Alumni]

Yup, 75 of 77 they chose to survey.  I'm glad you stated ACTIVE and PUBLISHING (i.e.....need their grant money to stay in business).  

Isn't it ironic as hell how many change their tune when the retire and don't need the money any more.  LOL

Of course there have also been over 50,000 scientists that signed on to say humans aren't a MAJOR contributor to climate change.....a factor, but not a MAJOR factor.

and again, you are ignoring the rest of the poll... I know how people like you work.

3146 scientists were asked the question, and more than 82% of them replied yes.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=3&t=190&&a=17

[Hards Alumni]

A new development in wind power allows for it to be done.  We've figured out how to tie turbines to balloons, teathered to the ground allowing for the turbine to be high enough in the air that it will be able to put out a consistent rate of power anywhere in the country.

I feel like nuclear is a step backwards because:
A: we'll need to build large plants.  (we can gradually add wind and solar to out grid in 1000's of places)
B: we'll need to deal with waste.
C: we'll need to revamp the grid.  (less important with other solutions because power won't be traveling the same distances.)

Yes it would require gov subsidies to start putting solar panels on office and gov buildings.  But that would be a better use of stimulus $ than many of the current projects.  Tax benefits based on Leed certification would also be nice.

Back to the original topic.  Avatar was awesome.  I would argue that the 'propaganda' in the film is overstated by some posters in this thread.

Wait, I thought every opinion that doesn't agree with someone's is propaganda.

or maybe the word is just thrown around too much...

[LON]

Rabble rabble rabble....RABBLE!

[RawdogDX]

Chico's is right, why aren't more scientists trying to stop valcano's?

Did you know that during one ice age the entire earth was covered and that valcano's were the only thing that allowed it to thaw?

Chico's evangelical comment answered via PM.

[Hards Alumni]

And at the same time, we've had solar activity changing outside the norms of it's cycle.  Right now, we're in a minimus cycle which is why global temperatures are DOWN the last decade and that cycle has now gone on longer than expected.

Lets unmuddy this...

All 10 of the last 10 years on record have been within the hottest 20 years on record that shows something... the thing that makes that concerning is that it's happened in one of the deepest solar minimums ever recorded (the sun has an 11 year solar min/max cycle, and we are now at the end of the solar min. cycle).

[mu-rara]

Chico's is right, why aren't more scientists trying to stop valcano's?

Did you know that during one ice age the entire earth was covered and that valcano's were the only thing that allowed it to thaw?

Chico's evangelical comment answered via PM.

Ice Age....undoubtedly started by man

[ChicosBailBonds]

Lets unmuddy this...

All 10 of the last 10 years on record have been within the hottest 20 years on record that shows something... the thing that makes that concerning is that it's happened in one of the deepest solar minimums ever recorded (the sun has an 11 year solar min/max cycle, and we are now at the end of the solar min. cycle).

The key is the first sentence....ON RECORD

We've been keeping records of temperatures for about 130 years...for about 80 of those years we were still crapping in outhouses...so how good were the instruments.  The earth is BILLIONS of years old.  We have some ice core samples saying one thing and others saying something else.  We have some scientists evaluating literally tree rings from about 15 trees and deciding to extrapolate that to the entire planet.

And no, if you read the articles I posted, we are BEYOND the min cycle right now which is why some scientists are wondering if we are going into a prolonged cooling period like we had at the turn of the century or perhaps the little ice age, because we've PASSED the 11 year cycle.

By the way, do a search on those temperature gathering centers....what a disgrace some of those are.  Putting them right next to blacktop, parking lots, exhaust fans, air conditioners...it's funny how those temperature readouts fluctuate so much (like the ones at the U. of Arizona) vs those in places in the middle of nowhere....hmmm).


Here's a little hint and a few photos...and this is how we're collecting the data.  Jesus Christ.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

One of my favorites at the U. of Arizona...right there on the blacktop.  A few others from Australia, California, etc.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Physicists....but apparently their opinions don't count.  LOL


It's the sun, stupid

http://seekingalpha.com/article/175641-climategate-revolt-of-the-physicists

[jficke13]

i find it kind of amusing that this avatar-based thread is about global warming when the movie was extolling the evils of american intervention in other cultures (read: evil american imperialism)

[ChicosBailBonds]

i find it kind of amusing that this avatar-based thread is about global warming when the movie was extolling the evils of american intervention in other cultures (read: evil american imperialism)

That's a whole other debate, but I would argue you are right, it was more about imperialism than anything else.  Of course, on the grand scheme of things, American Imperialism has been rather minor leagues compared to the British, French, etc over the course of time.

[MU B2002]

i find it kind of amusing that this avatar-based thread is about global warming when the movie was extolling the evils of american intervention in other cultures (read: evil american imperialism)

Well initially the thread was about blue breasts and masturbation....  Would you rather go back to that?

[wildbillsb]

Yes, absolutely want clean air but I also want a vibrant economy.  You can't run it on pixie dust.

Wind and solar are massively inefficient and cannot do the job alone, not even close.  Without subsidies, they are huge money losers as well, but even if we say the subsidies are ok, they cannot create the output.

If I want clean air, then why not nuclear?  I'm all of nuclear but for some reason none of the politicians want to go for this.

As for Mid East oil, hell I've been saying that forever.  I'm the son of a Petroleum Geologist \ Geophysicist who spent most of his career with the oil companies. I was schooled on this heavily...he was a scientist afterall.  We have craploads of oil at our disposal IN THIS COUNTRY that we refuse to touch.  We have more oil shale in the USA than any country in the world except Canada.  We have more natural gas deposits than ANY country in the world.   There is plenty of energy here in the states to be had that would get us off the Middle East if we ever decided to actually do something about it.

At the end of the day, I believe in renewable energies (I have solar panels myself) but they CANNOT do the job alone.  Nuclear is here, but we won't do it.  Clean coal is here, but we won't do it.  Oil, natural gas, Oil shale is here, but we won't do it.

Wind and solar cannot do it alone and at some point people are going to wake up to this.  And just wait until we put more and more electric cars on the grid, where do people think that electricity is going to come from?

Sometimes people don't think all the way through.

So, if we want to "think all the way through," then we must consider ALL energy-related costs, including the incredible subsidies given to nukes, coal power, and  natural gas in the form of state and federal subsidized raliroad transportation of the coal from the great basin to the power plants in the east and far, far west, etc.  We must also consider the hidden billions spent on health care costs because of respiratory-related diseases caused by coal-burning power plants.  We must also consider the subsidy costs of cleaning up our lakes and fresh water sources because of coal-burning water pollution.  We must also consider the cost of state-by-state legal mandates  that utilities earn a guaranteed annual profit.  We must also consider the inefficiency of fossil fuel burning energy production through voltage drop across miles of power lines, when local solar/wind production can deliver significantly more energy by being closer to the places of power usag,......and so forth. And most dangerous  of all is the fact of global warming/climate change.  Talk about "clean" fossil fuels?  In my view, there ain't nothing clean about burning coal, no matter how it's packaged and sold.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So, if we want to "think all the way through," then we must consider ALL energy-related costs, including the incredible subsidies given to nukes, coal power, and  natural gas in the form of state and federal subsidized raliroad transportation of the coal from the great basin to the power plants in the east and far, far west, etc.  We must also consider the hidden billions spent on health care costs because of respiratory-related diseases caused by coal-burning power plants.  We must also consider the subsidy costs of cleaning up our lakes and fresh water sources because of coal-burning water pollution.  We must also consider the cost of state-by-state legal mandates  that utilities earn a guaranteed annual profit.  We must also consider the inefficiency of fossil fuel burning energy production through voltage drop across miles of power lines, when local solar/wind production can deliver significantly more energy by being closer to the places of power usag,......and so forth. And most dangerous  of all is the fact of global warming/climate change.  Talk about "clean" fossil fuels?  In my view, there ain't nothing clean about burning coal, no matter how it's packaged and sold.

An their ain't nothing clean about batteries in hybrid cars that have to be discarded....and their ain't nothing clean about solar cells (Photovolatics)  once they use up their 15 to 25 year lifespan....and on and on.

Not to mention the fact that manufacturing batteries, wind energy systems and solar panels costs an enormous amount in .... you guessed it....fossil fuels as well as very toxic chemicals.

Pick your poison (literally) because everything has a drawback.  I'd rather put carbon back into the air since it sustains life (plants, oceans, etc)  then some other options which have their own pollution issues.

[RawdogDX]

I hope we can admit it's a little funny how 5 years ago people would have been saying "the earth isn't getting warmer."  And now that the polar caps are crashing into australia, the same people are switching to "it has nothing to do with us, just look at mars" or "it may have a little to do with us but not more than a little."  

Why is it people only talk about our carbon production as a possible factor in warming?
What about all the carbon that isn't being used up by trees we've cut down or just aren't growing in every urban/farm area across the world?  Or what about the fact that the suns rays is hitting hundreds of thousands of square miles of blacktop and tar roofs instead of grass?  

Quick check, is anyone here against dumping a bit of iron in the ocean on plankton schools to increase their size thus reducing carbon and increasing the bottom rung of the food chain?  Probably, and he's probably and enviromentalist who doesn't want to mess with stuff.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I hope we can admit it's a little funny how 5 years ago people would have been saying "the earth isn't getting warmer."  And now that the polar caps are crashing into australia, the same people are switching to "it has nothing to do with us, just look at mars" or "it may have a little to do with us but not more than a little."  

Why is it people only talk about our carbon production as a possible factor in warming?
What about all the carbon that isn't being used up by trees we've cut down or just aren't growing in every urban/farm area across the world?  Or what about the fact that the suns rays is hitting hundreds of thousands of square miles of blacktop and tar roofs instead of grass?  

Quick check, is anyone here against dumping a bit of iron in the ocean on plankton schools to increase their size thus reducing carbon and increasing the bottom rung of the food chain?  Probably, and he's probably and enviromentalist who doesn't want to mess with stuff.

Which poles are you talking about....the southern pole has been growing.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing/story-e6frg6no-1225700046908

This is why this stuff gets me crazy...this isn't absolute but so many want to make it that way.  Yes, the northern pole is shrinking but the southern pole is growing.  And again, we have satellite imagery from only about 20 years...we have no idea how much it has grown or shrunk in years past other than stories of locals.


I'm all for the environment, I'm all for clean air and water, I want to protect the future as much as anyone.  I'd just like to know how we are going to do this since so many folks that are pushing this stuff are against everything.  Wind and solar CANNOT do it all, cannot even come CLOSE to doing it all.

[Hards Alumni]

Physicists....but apparently their opinions don't count.  LOL


It's the sun, stupid

http://seekingalpha.com/article/175641-climategate-revolt-of-the-physicists

from the article

They haven't completely worked out the mechanism yet, but they think it has to do with cosmic rays causing cloud formation and clouds reflecting sunlight back into space.

ground breaking stuff.  

[Hards Alumni]

I hope we can admit it's a little funny how 5 years ago people would have been saying "the earth isn't getting warmer."  And now that the polar caps are crashing into australia, the same people are switching to "it has nothing to do with us, just look at mars" or "it may have a little to do with us but not more than a little."  

Why is it people only talk about our carbon production as a possible factor in warming?
What about all the carbon that isn't being used up by trees we've cut down or just aren't growing in every urban/farm area across the world?  Or what about the fact that the suns rays is hitting hundreds of thousands of square miles of blacktop and tar roofs instead of grass?  

Quick check, is anyone here against dumping a bit of iron in the ocean on plankton schools to increase their size thus reducing carbon and increasing the bottom rung of the food chain?  Probably, and he's probably and enviromentalist who doesn't want to mess with stuff.

you and I think quite a bit alike on this topic.

In addition to the square miles of black top and tarred roofs, what about the millions of miniature green houses that are cars?

[ChicosBailBonds]

from the article

ground breaking stuff.  

Because it's complex stuff....the very same reason why the climate folks refused to let their models be examined for fears of being caught manipulating or unable to explain their modeling (too late, that one is out of the bag now).  Those East Anglia folks really nailed it.


I would hope at the very least you would acknowledge that climate and what affects climate goes well beyond the study of climatology.  To not engage the opinions of other scientists in related fields is naive.