"Yes, Let's Please have More Conversations about Global Warming."

[olger]

Great article from Forbes Magazine

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...global-warming/

Blessings,

G

[olger]

It was nothing.......

[Bravus]

Bushels of cherries...

[Tom Wetmore]

... make that a truckload.

The author is from the Heartland Institute - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

Just this bit of info is worth the price of admission:

Quote:

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks. Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports. The Heartland Institute also undertook a variety of other activities on behalf of Philip Morris, including meeting with legislators, holding "off-the-record" briefings, and producing op-eds, radio interviews, and letters. In 1994, at the request of Philip Morris, the Heartland Institute met with Republican Congressmen to encourage them to oppose increases in the federal excise tax. Heartland reported back to Philip Morris that the Congressmen were "strongly in our camp", and planned further meetings with other legislators.

And as they say, "Follow the Money" - Read the section on their funding. In addition to a number of major tobacco companies, there is ExxonMobil, major pharmaceutical companies, Illinois coal lobby, etc.

As for the author James Taylor, his qualifications as an expert in climate change are not really any better than his musical namesake. "I studied atmospheric science and majored in government at Dartmouth College. I obtained my Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University." High school students can claim to have studied "atmospheric science". His tagline "I write about energy and environment issues" is about as impressive as it gets. A 4th grader after doing a one page paper for science class could do as well.

[olger]

This is really great!

http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/19/mothe...global-warming/

[Bravus]

I hear the sound of coconuts...

[Bravus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHFXG3r_0B8

[Planey]

Graeme

[phkrause]

[Tom Wetmore]

[CoAspen]

Coconuts do migrate you know....you can read about it on the internet blogs, expounded on by wogs who have gone to the dogs,(sorry about that doggie, not the 4-legged kind)...and besides truth does not matter!!

[Planey]

Works for me...

Graeme

[Woody]

Global Warming topics belong in the Conspiracy Forum.

[olger]

In-deed.

oG

[JoeMo]

Hey Olger,

I'm on your side on this issue. I know that I'm in the minority here; but I liked the Forbes article, since it is based on actual data rather than conjecture from models which have been proven faulty time and time again. Remember models try to simulate reality based on assumptions - they are NOT reality. Since when is science validated by collaboration and conjecture? I always thought science was validated by peer review based on data. NASA and NOAA satellite data IMO trump computerized weather models.

I can't speak for the world, but here in Denver, March 2013 averaged 15 degrees cooler than March 2012. So far April 2013 is averaging more than 20 degrees cooler than April 2012. Some scientists in Europe and Russia are worried about another mini ice age, based on 2012 - 2013 temperatures and intermediate range forecasts. Yeah, it's only 2 months of data.

Why do we want to risk economic ruination of this country to reduce carbon output when developing countries are doing nothing but increasing their carbon output? China and India are incrementally producing far more carbon by increasing coal burn far more than the developing world could possibly curtail it. Who's limiting or curtailing their coal burn? A lot of good Kyoto did ...

[Woody]

Hey Olger,

I'm on your side on this issue. I know that I'm in the minority here; but I liked the Forbes article, since it is based on actual data rather than conjecture from models which have been proven faulty time and time again. Remember models try to simulate reality based on assumptions - they are NOT reality. Since when is science validated by collaboration and conjecture? I always thought science was validated by peer review based on data. NASA and NOAA satellite data IMO trump computerized weather models.

I can't speak for the world, but here in Denver, March 2013 averaged 15 degrees cooler than March 2012. So far April 2013 is averaging more than 20 degrees cooler than April 2012. Some scientists in Europe and Russia are worried about another mini ice age, based on 2012 - 2013 temperatures and intermediate range forecasts. Yeah, it's only 2 months of data.

Why do we want to risk economic ruination of this country to reduce carbon output when developing countries are doing nothing but increasing their carbon output? China and India are incrementally producing far more carbon by increasing coal burn far more than the developing world could possibly curtail it. Who's limiting or curtailing their coal burn? A lot of good Kyoto did ...

I'm with you on this one JoeMo. You are not alone brother.

[Bravus]

If I had the time and wasn't buried under a pile of marking, I'd go through and show, point by point, how very, very far from 'based on data' the claims in that Forbes article are.

If you care about the truth, you could do it yourself.

If all you care about is confirming your current views, carry on...

[phkrause]

If I had the time and wasn't buried under a pile of marking, I'd go through and show, point by point, how very, very far from 'based on data' the claims in that Forbes article are.

If you care about the truth, you could do it yourself.

If all you care about is confirming your current views, carry on...

Excellent points Bravus. Its got nothing to do with actual facts. Forbes is the exact opposite of Gore, both are just..., I can't even bring myself to say it on CA.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

Global Warming topics belong in the Conspiracy Forum.

Totally, Woody! Just a bunch of liberal environmentalists looking for any excuse to help the U.S. and its citizens go bankrupt while we're all freezing to death in the dark. Even if they are right, we'll still go bankrupt, just while burning up in a plague of heat.

There is a bill here in CO to increase the amount of energy generated by not-for-profit coops (which serve poor rural areas) by renewable resources by 2020 by 25%. It would cost the coops (which means member rate-payers) about $3 Billion over the next 6.5 years. Who sponsored the bill? Legislators from the urban Denver and Colorado Springs which are served by a for-profit utility and an exempt municipality! Rural rates would increase by a minimum of 20%. These people are already poor!

[JoeMo]

Quote:

If all you care about is confirming your current views, carry on...

Hey Bravus, predictions deal with the future. Neither of us has a crystal ball. I guess time will tell.

I admit that I haven't seen all the data; and like you, I'm buried in personal and professional work. I am a risk manager for an energy company; and all I can say is climate change and the regulatory uncertainty associated with it is at the top of my risk register I try to look at both sides of the story; and IMO, the anti-global warming folks have better real data than the pro-global warming folks. So far, my company agrees with my assessment. But then we are probably biased; since 60% of our energy is generated by coal. OTOH, 20% of our energy is generated by renewables if you include hydro generation (which the bill in CO does NOT include).

[phkrause]

Oh that's not true and you know it, and besides if that were the case I guess that would include you? Since you keep claiming throughout that you are a liberal!

[Ted Oplinger]

Considering that twice in the last 2000 years, there is evidence pointing to a much warmer earth than we have now - I really am not that worried, nor do I think the warming is man-related.

The climate is much more dependent upon the amount of solar energy received by the sun, than any other factor. Of the atmospheric factors affecting heat retention, water vapor and cloud formation top the list. Methane ranks high on the list, but that one we cannot do much about.

If the evolution argument is seen to be valid, then one must acknowledge the geochemical evidence that there have been periods of time there has been far more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than is seen now - a condition lasting millions of years. Likewise, there were times oxygen levels were higher than now, such that lightning would trigger fierce wildfires (the Carboniferous period).

That the earth's atmosphere has fluctuated in the percentages of its component gases ought to be considered a given, considering the amount of "long earth age" interpreted data scientists have. Today's component percentages are also in flux - an are not near levels scientist say they have "seen" in the earth's past.

Why does man's science say levels 100 yrs ago are "normal", and that today's are "alarmingly increasing", when their own science says climate varies far more wildly than the mere fractions of a degree Celsius indicated over the last 50 years - and much of that happened without man's industry to blame?

With all due respects - I think God's creation has many more safeguards and interfaces to balance man's "contributions" to the atmosphere than we are currently aware of.

I couple that with the political jockeying and the East Anglian scandal (many thanks to the Russians for blowing that one wide open), where a regular scientist like me saw the demonstrated cherry-picked data,the false computer-generated data, as well as a break-down in the peer-review process with the premier publication in the field - and there is ample reason for me to treat "anthropogenic global warming" with a fair amount of salt...

Count me in as one who sees the need to treat the environment with respect, but rejects political-agenda driven "science" that just too conveniently fits the political thought which funds it.

I know, Bravus - you have a completely different perspective - I respect that, but for now we will be on opposite sides on the fence on this particular issue.

Food for thought on where I stand on the issue.

Blessings,

[Bravus]

Your thoughtful approach is, as ever, respected and appreciated, Ted.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

Oh that's not true and you know it, and besides if that were the case I guess that would include you? Since you keep claiming throughout that you are a liberal!

I don't know what's not true that I know, pk. Time may well prove out that I'm wrong - just like I told Bravus.

As far as me claiming to be a liberal, it depends on the context. Yes, when it comes to theology, I am liberal. When it comes to many social issues, I consider myself a liberal. But when it comes to fiscal and economics and politics, I'm pretty conservative.

I think we all have areas in our lives where we are conservative and other areas where we are liberal.

Ted, as usual, has put my argument in much more eloquent and less volatile terms than I did.

I seem to rile you a lot lately. Sorry - I don't mean to.

[Narcah]

What I have never ever had explained to me is this: who determined that global warming is BAD? What if global warming is GOOD and we should be encouraging the process?