Log in

View Full Version : US federal Carbon Tax is halfway home ...



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Melonie
07-22-2009, 03:29 AM
^^^ all admirable pursuits to be sure, but one must maintain perspective on the whole picture. While China's 3 gorges dam is a fantastic civil engineering project, and China's encouragement of wind power will add some wind generated electricity to the grid, in point of fact China is bringing online two new coal fired power plants every WEEK ! And while China is investing money to assist the development of electric cars, in point of fact Chery is turning out thousands of cheap essentially non-emission controlled cars every WEEK !

from your own link ...

(snip)"Coal will continue to dominate China's power mix, although it is likely to slip from its 80 percent share.

China was aiming at 1,400-1,500 GW total capacity by 2020, Fang said. Hydropower would account for 300 GW, while coal-fired power capacity would need to reach 900-1,000 GW to ensure a supply-demand balance of energy.

That meant China's annual coal demand would increase by 600 million tonnes to 3.4 billion tonnes, he said.

China has repeatedly failed to hit targets for bringing polluting and greenhouse-gas-emitting industries under control, jeopardising a pledge to cut 20 percent off "(snip)



As you pointed out, China's 'demonstration projects' certainly paint an encouraging picture in the media. But the relatively unpublicized reality is that China's economy runs on cheap dirty fossil fuel energy ... and consumes more and more of it with each passing week.

Circling back to the carbon cap and trade issue, executives at AEP, Duke Energy etc. have already commented that their costs of coal fired electricity will rise 50% or more as a result of a carbon tax. This will directly impact the competitiveness of US industries in the southeast and midwest which presently rely on 'affordable' coal fired electricity to maintain some semblance of global competitiveness. Once enacted, the carbon tax is likely to drive many of these remaining US industries to go offshore. This will essentially create a 'migration', where highly regulated highly scrubbed US coal fired power plants formerly serving these industries shut down, and where new lightly regulated unscrubbed Chinese coal fired power plants start up to serve new production facilities relocated to China. The end result is the same as described above ... total global CO2 / greenhouse gas emissions go up, American jobs are lost.

There are also those that would make the case that, in a manner similar to increasing the federal minimum wage, imposing a carbon tax benefits 'blue' states in the northeast and west coast at the expense of 'red' states in the southeast, midwest and south. The reason of course is that the northeastern and west coast states have already 'chased out' coal fired power generation as a result of state regulations, have replaced this capacity with lower 'carbon footprint' natural gas generation, and have already incurred much higher electricity costs (thus higher costs of living, thus higher wage demands etc.). The disproportionate effect of a carbon tax on the coal fired power generation in southeastern, midwest and southern states will greatly increase their electricity costs ( thus increasing costs of living, thus increasing wage demands) ... and in so doing reduce the cost differential that is currently motivating remaining businesses and highly skilled workers to migrate to these (soon to be formerly) lower cost states.

~

Eric Stoner
07-22-2009, 06:58 AM
^^^ all admirable pursuits to be sure, but one must maintain perspective on the whole picture. While China's 3 gorges dam is a fantastic civil engineering project, and China's encouragement of wind power will add some wind generated electricity to the grid, in point of fact China is bringing online two new coal fired power plants every WEEK ! And while China is investing money to assist the development of electric cars, in point of fact Chery is turning out thousands of cheap essentially non-emission controlled cars every WEEK !

from your own link ...

(snip)"Coal will continue to dominate China's power mix, although it is likely to slip from its 80 percent share.

China was aiming at 1,400-1,500 GW total capacity by 2020, Fang said. Hydropower would account for 300 GW, while coal-fired power capacity would need to reach 900-1,000 GW to ensure a supply-demand balance of energy.

That meant China's annual coal demand would increase by 600 million tonnes to 3.4 billion tonnes, he said.

China has repeatedly failed to hit targets for bringing polluting and greenhouse-gas-emitting industries under control, jeopardising a pledge to cut 20 percent off "(snip)



As you pointed out, China's 'demonstration projects' certainly paint an encouraging picture in the media. But the relatively unpublicized reality is that China's economy runs on cheap dirty fossil fuel energy ... and consumes more and more of it with each passing week.

Circling back to the carbon cap and trade issue, executives at AEP, Duke Energy etc. have already commented that their costs of coal fired electricity will rise 50% or more as a result of a carbon tax. This will directly impact the competitiveness of US industries in the southeast and midwest which presently rely on 'affordable' coal fired electricity to maintain some semblance of global competitiveness. Once enacted, the carbon tax is likely to drive many of these remaining US industries to go offshore. This will essentially create a 'migration', where highly regulated highly scrubbed US coal fired power plants formerly serving these industries shut down, and where new lightly regulated unscrubbed Chinese coal fired power plants start up to serve new production facilities relocated to China. The end result is the same as described above ... total global CO2 / greenhouse gas emissions go up, American jobs are lost.

There are also those that would make the case that, in a manner similar to increasing the federal minimum wage, imposing a carbon tax benefits 'blue' states in the northeast and west coast at the expense of 'red' states in the southeast, midwest and south. The reason of course is that the northeastern and west coast states have already 'chased out' coal fired power generation as a result of state regulations, have replaced this capacity with lower 'carbon footprint' natural gas generation, and have already incurred much higher electricity costs (thus higher costs of living, thus higher wage demands etc.). The disproportionate effect of a carbon tax on the coal fired power generation in southeastern, midwest and southern states will greatly increase their electricity costs ( thus increasing costs of living, thus increasing wage demands) ... and in so doing reduce the cost differential that is currently motivating remaining businesses and highly skilled workers to migrate to these (soon to be formerly) lower cost states.

~

Thank you Melonie ! You illustrate perfectly the disconnect between the ideology and the actual reality; between the public face and the reality of Chinese industrialization. And I respectfully remind everyone that China is NOT alone. India, Pakhistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil and a dozen other Third World countries are industrializing. Add in many Eastern European countries and whatever carbon reduction we make will be a spit in the ocean from a long term standpoint.

If, IF Obama and the Congress were really serious about cleaner, cheaper and more secure energy they would : 1. expand nuclear power ; 2. switch all Federal vehicles to natural gas and provide incentives for states and municipaliites to do likewise ( NYC is actually doing rather well in this regard ) and 3. mandate that all new trucks built and sold in the U.S. run on natural gas. None of these steps would cost an additional dime of Federal money and all would reduce oil imports and coal consumption.. The Feds could also force coal fired power plants to switch to natural gas. From what I've seen so far, "clean coal" is a crock.

threlayer
07-22-2009, 08:07 AM
Probably NOTHING will ever be "cheaper" than coal as a fuel. That's why so many countries seem to love it.

Unfortunately when all COSTS are accounted for, such as public health, global warming consequences, environmental extraction damage, worker safety (and these ARE enumeratable costs), then coal is Not such a bargain after all. However, exploitative societies/governments find that they can (and do) ignore these associated costs and "justify" the apparent cheap price of coal as fuel.

Anyone with a "system" approach to complex systems realizes that the cost of anything is not just its simple pricing. It's a dangerous approach to ignore all cost factors; it will eventually bite you in the ass. And it will hurt big time.

Eric Stoner
07-22-2009, 08:45 AM
Probably NOTHING will ever be "cheaper" than coal as a fuel. That's why so many countries seem to love it.

Unfortunately when all COSTS are accounted for, such as public health, global warming consequences, environmental extraction damage, worker safety (and these ARE enumeratable costs), then coal is Not such a bargain after all. However, exploitative societies/governments find that then can (and do) ignore these associated costs and "justify" the apparent cheap price of coal as fuel.

Anyone with a "system" approach to complex systems realizes that the cost of anything is not just it's simple pricing. It's a dangerous approach to ignore all cost factors; it will eventually bite you in the ass.

I think you're right which is why I find it curious why more "Greenies" are not able to take the same approach in looking at the total picture and doing a complete cost-benefit analysis.

The very few I've read and listened to that possess a little intellectual honesty, admit that their proposals will result in de-industrialization and a LOWER standard of living i.e. a cleaner but POORER planet.

threlayer
07-22-2009, 08:48 AM
...IF Obama and the Congress were really serious about cleaner, cheaper and more secure energy they would : 1. expand nuclear power ; 2. switch all Federal vehicles to natural gas and provide incentives for states and municipaliites to do likewise... and 3. mandate that all new trucks built and sold in the U.S. run on natural gas. None of these steps would cost an additional dime of Federal money and all would reduce oil imports and coal consumption.. The Feds could also force coal fired power plants to switch to natural gas. From what I've seen so far, "clean coal" is a crock.

Alarmist 'environmentalists' stymied the expansion of nuclear power in the US back in the 80's. Switching vehicles to natural gas will increase heating costs for many Americans; to some extent that will be reduced by reductions in the price of oil, but not likely for the same people who experience the cost increases -- so that is cost shifting. It might be 'doable' with financial incentives.

Forcing coal plants to shift is a very inefficient conversion which will greatly increase the cost of plants, which are mostly off the books because they are older. Many plants will just have to cease operations and be downgraded in capacity, reducing the reliability of our entire power grid. Generally natural gas is regarded as a premium fuel for smaller unit consumption where pollution is much harder to control, such as in vehicles and home heating. Burning natural gas will NOT decrease CO2 emissions.

"Clean coal" historically has meant reduction of sulfur/nitrogen emissions, heavy metals, and flyash, and that has been quite successful, though more is likely at the cost of efficiency. The current usage of the term "clean coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal)" is to somehow capture the carbon resulting from the oxidation of carbon. Well, this makes NO sense to me because it will take most of the energy produced to "reduce" and recombine carbon to remove it from the gaseous form. Burning coal is an exothermic reaction (it produces heat) and recombining carbon is an endothermic reaction (it requires heat for the reaction to proceed). It may be possible to utilize waste heat (now dissipated in cooling towers or heat effluent dumped into large nearby water bodies), but that is very low grade heat and probably not at a high enough temperature for useful recombining reactions to take place. Further, extracting all carbon violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So I agree that this "clean coal" idea is probably very impractical, though some innovative techniques might be found with extensive R&D. Example: "FutureGen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal) was a US government project, announced by President George W. Bush in 2003 to build a near zero-emissions coal-fueled power plant to produce hydrogen and electricity while using carbon capture and storage. Funding for the plant was withdrawn by the Department of Energy on 29 January 2008."

Well, that reliably leaves nuclear power, almost. Anyone worried about nuclear proliferation?

What else? hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and conservation (good luck there)

Actually wind power is essentially solar power turned from radiant energy into kinetic energy which is far simpler, cheaper and easier to extract. Its environmental impact, apart from its component materials, is : dangerous to birds, produces distortions of over-the-air information reception (TV shadows/reception), land usage (for both wind farms and transmission rights-of-way), and visual impact--all pretty minor problems in the scope of things.

So there is a LOT of incentive to do cost-reduction development on wind power. The current incentives and subsidization will have the impact of accelerating this technology.

In my opinion very short-sighted people of course will degrade these efforts, but over the long term it is a very beneficial technology with low risks.

threlayer
07-22-2009, 08:53 AM
I think you're right which is why I find it curious why more "Greenies" are not able to take the same approach in looking at the total picture and doing a complete cost-benefit analysis.

The very few I've read and listened to that possess a little intellectual honesty, admit that their proposals will result in de-industrialization and a LOWER standard of living i.e. a cleaner but POORER planet.

Agreed.

However, it's not just the "greenies". A lot of conservatives just cannot see beyond the near term financially and they do not have the foresight needed to visualize beyond the obvious. It's just not in their personalities.

Melonie
07-22-2009, 09:46 AM
The very few I've read and listened to that possess a little intellectual honesty, admit that their proposals will result in de-industrialization and a LOWER standard of living i.e. a cleaner but POORER planet.

Arguably, unless and until China, India et all adopt 'Western' views towards the peripheral costs of pollution, green proposals which limit CO2 / greenhouse gas emissions only in the USA and Western Europe will result in a lower standard of living and also a DIRTIER / hotter planet ! Again, the reason for this is that when industrial production facilities operating under current Western regulations relocate to China or India under essentially zero regulations, the amount of greenhouse gas and pollution emissions of all kinds will absolutely be higher than it was before production was ceased at US or European facilities.


So there is a LOT of incentive to do cost-reduction development on wind power. The current incentives and subsidization will have the impact of accelerating this technology.

Those subsidies have indeed accelerated the installation of existing technology wind generators. However, from a grid operations standpoint, in most cases the wind generators create more new costs than they 'save'. Of course, via cost shifting rate mechanisms, these additional costs which are directly attributable to wind generators are 'stealth' subsidized by increasing the electric bills of every electricity customer on the grid !

SerenaSin
07-22-2009, 10:33 AM
The really sad part is that the Earth is NOT warming. Not one of the dire predictions made by Man-Made Global Warming proponents ten years ago has come to pass. Quite the contrary,since 2001, the Earth has been COOLING. Even worse, this legislation does next to nothing to address the carbon outputs of China and India and even worse than that, incentivizes exporting jobs to those and other countries.

"Global warming" (whether you believe the science behind it or not) is not the only way that coal plants, nuclear waste, air pollution, oil spills, ash ponds, clearcutting and industrialization in general are destroying so many ecosystems and living things on this planet.

The focus on global warming/cooling and scrutiny over whether the temp has risen a degree this way or that way in x number of years has become such an irrelevant distraction from larger, more immediate, systemic environmental issues (including socio-environmental issues, like environmental racism).

Eric Stoner
07-22-2009, 11:26 AM
"Global warming" (whether you believe the science behind it or not) is not the only way that coal plants, nuclear waste, air pollution, oil spills, ash ponds, clearcutting and industrialization in general are destroying so many ecosystems and living things on this planet.

The focus on global warming/cooling and scrutiny over whether the temp has risen a degree this way or that way in x number of years has become such an irrelevant distraction from larger, more immediate, systemic environmental issues (including socio-environmental issues, like environmental racism).

I'm all for a cleaner planet.

What is your solution Serena for all the environmental ills you listed ?

How do you define "environmental racism" ?

How do you suggest we clean up China, India, Nigeria and other "dirty" places ?

Melonie
07-22-2009, 01:56 PM
^^^ the obvious answer is a 'New World Order', where every country becomes subject to a new global government !!! It will only be in this way that the uncooperative Chinese, Indian etc. national leaders and the 'voiceless' billions of Chinese, Indian etc. citizens will be 'forced' to adopt Western views and laws / regulations / penalties re heavily polluting, highly energy intensive industries. Of course this will require World War 3 for implementation.

Absent World War 3, there is simply no way that China, India et al are going to burden their economies with the much higher costs of pollution / greenhouse gas reduction measures, killing their efforts to build self-sufficient domestic consumer economies in the process and lowering the already low standard of living of their populations. And as long as China, India et all represent a much lower cost option in regard to industrial production costs, essentially every effort made by the US or Europe to reduce pollution / greenhouse gas emissions within their own jurisdictions will accomplish absolutely nothing in regard to total global pollution / greenhouse gas levels.

If you want proof of this point, see ...

(snip)"Wind-borne pollution from China and neighboring countries is spreading to California and other parts of the nation and Canada as a result of surging economic activity and destructive farming practices half a world away, according to new scientific studies.

The research shows that a mix of pollutants, from dust to ozone to toxic chemicals, travels farther than once realized.

Federal air quality officials fear that the foreign-born pollution will complicate efforts to cut smog and haze, and make it more difficult to meet federal air quality standards in California and other parts of the West.

Although most of the pollutants are similar to ones already found in North America, they do add to health concerns by slightly increasing year-round concentrations of gases and tiny particles in the air, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

During peak winds, however, dust and smoke levels can approach or exceed health-based standards. Federal scientists, too, are beginning to probe the dust for bacteria and viruses that may be attached.

The made-in-China label on haze over North America is partly due to increased productivity of consumer goods ranging from patio furniture to CDs to toys. But it also is a result of deforestation, over-grazing and intensive cultivation of fragile soils. (snip)

In a nutshell, very strict environmental regulations enacted in California prompted some amount of former California industrial production to outsource to China. In turn, that outsourced production is able to utilize low cost coal power, is able to avoid environmental compliance costs etc. But in 'driving out' industries ( and the jobs / capital gains / tax revenues those industries formerly provided), California failed in also 'driving out' the pollution they formerly generated. Now that the same products are being produced in China, the higher levels of pollution from the new Chinese factories doesn't all stay in China - it is being blown right back to California via the jet stream !

threlayer
07-22-2009, 06:14 PM
^^^ the obvious answer is a 'New World Order', where every country becomes subject to a new global government !!! It will only be in this way that the uncooperative Chinese, Indian etc. national leaders and the 'voiceless' billions of Chinese, Indian etc. citizens will be 'forced' to adopt Western views and laws / regulations / penalties re heavily polluting, highly energy intensive industries. Of course this will require World War 3 for implementation
.... Or some type of boycotting. But we just HAVE to get our cheap Chinese toys, no matter the consequences. The precedent is of course Cuba and North Korea.


^^^ If you want proof of this point, see ... http://articles.latimes.com/2002/apr/26/news/mn-40070

(snip)"Wind-borne pollution from China and neighboring countries is spreading to California and other parts of the nation and Canada as a result of surging economic activity and destructive farming practices half a world away, according to new scientific studies.

The research shows that a mix of pollutants, from dust to ozone to toxic chemicals, travels farther than once realized.

Federal air quality officials fear that the foreign-born pollution will complicate efforts to cut smog and haze, and make it more difficult to meet federal air quality standards in California and other parts of the West.

Although most of the pollutants are similar to ones already found in North America, they do add to health concerns by slightly increasing year-round concentrations of gases and tiny particles in the air, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

During peak winds, however, dust and smoke levels can approach or exceed health-based standards. Federal scientists, too, are beginning to probe the dust for bacteria and viruses that may be attached.

The made-in-China label on haze over North America is partly due to increased productivity of consumer goods ranging from patio furniture to CDs to toys. But it also is a result of deforestation, over-grazing and intensive cultivation of fragile soils. (snip)

In a nutshell, very strict environmental regulations enacted in California prompted some amount of former California industrial production to outsource to China. In turn, that outsourced production is able to utilize low cost coal power, is able to avoid environmental compliance costs etc. But in 'driving out' industries ( and the jobs / capital gains / tax revenues those industries formerly provided), California failed in also 'driving out' the pollution they formerly generated. Now that the same products are being produced in China, the higher levels of pollution from the new Chinese factories doesn't all stay in China - it is being blown right back to California via the jet stream !Don't tell us that the only solution is let ourselves be held HOSTAGE by those countries that are heavy and unregulated polluters. That, right there, is a precedent.

Melonie
07-22-2009, 07:31 PM
^^^ while it is technically possible to enact tariffs / quotas on foreign imports at the US borders, it is NOT technically possible to erect a barrier that keeps out polluted air or greenhouse gases at the US border !!! Thus even if the US gov't was stupid enough to resurrect a Smoot-Hawley anti-foreign trade policy to protect remaining US industries and remaining US jobs, it is not going to impact the ability of China, India et al to 'export' CO2 and pollution to the US west coast !!!

eagle2
07-22-2009, 08:59 PM
and, in fairness, liberal ideologues like yourself were warning about global COOLING 30-40 years ago ...

No they weren't. All you're doing is repeating standard conservative talking points. Global warming is based on science, not ideology. Global warming denial is based entirely on ideology. There never was a scientific consensus that the climate was cooling. There was uncertainty whether the climate was cooling or warming. By the 1980's it was clear the climate was warming.



Again trying to circle back to the Dollar Den focus, there is nothing 'cheap' about the electricity produced by wind and solar.

Yes there is. Neither of them need fuel. The only cost is the capital. If you build a wind or solar power generator that last 50 years, once it is built, there is no other cost other than to maintain it. If you build a coal fired generator, 30 or 40 years from now, you will still be buying coal every day to power it.

The cost of coal powered plants does not change much from year to year. The cost of wind powered generators has been dropping significantly from one year to the next.

http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_costs.html#How%20much%20does%20wind%20energy%2 0cost

(snip)
Over the last 20 years, the cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80%. In the early 1980s, when the first utility-scale turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants can generate electricity for less than 5 cents/kWh with the Production Tax Credit in many parts of the U.S., a price that is competitive with new coal- or gas-fired power plants.
(snip)



The only reasons that wind and solar 'appear' to be worthwhile investments are the HUGE gov't subsidies paid out to the equipment producers, the even larger tax breaks provided by the gov't to partnership investors in the form of 'production tax credits', and of course the tax credits paid out by state gov'ts to subsidize retail purchases of small solar and wind generation for 'personal' use. These subsidies are funded both by increased tax collections on all Americans ( that actually pay income taxes ), and by an increased price for 'non-green' electricity purchased from the grid.
Again, the costs of electricity from wind and solar keep going down. Eventually one of them, or both, will be cheaper than coal. No matter how cheap coal gets, it will never be as cheap as wind or sun, which is free.

In addition, there are the costs of the side-effects from coal. There is the damage to the environment and damage to the health of people who breathe in the poison coming out of coal-fired plants. I read one estimate, that approximately 600,000 people a year die in China as a result of all of the pollution there.

eagle2
07-22-2009, 09:16 PM
I WISH you were right about the falling price for wind and solar energy. Spain's experience demonstrates the opposite to be true. You know Spain ? Where Don Quixote tilted at windmills ? Where La Mancha, a huge windy plain is located ? Where they have the Costa Del Sol ? And other areas with at least 300 days of sunlight per year ? No country is better situated for low cost solar and wind energy than Spain and yet it's experience in trying to "CREATE" Green jobs has been disastrous.


Do you have any references for these problems in Spain? What about Denmark? As of 2007, close to 20% of electric produced in Denmark was coming from wind power, and the percentage has been increasing every year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

How is Denmark able to get so much energy from wind without wrecking their economy?



Btw, Mel and I are both showing you and Threlayer the courtesy of disagreeing without being disagreeable. Neither of us have called names or attempted to affix labels. Ideology has absolutely nothing to do with our skepticism. That skepticism is based on ALL of the available evidence and NOT just the factual data that pleases us most at the moment.

How much research have you and Melonie done on this issue? What credentials do you have to make you qualified to determine the validity of these scientific findings? Among those scientists who actually do research in the field of climate science, they are in overwhelming agreement about global warming. In a recent poll of scientists, of the climatologists who are active in research, 97% were in agreement that the climate is warming and humans are playing a role.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2009/2009-01-20-02.asp

(snip)
Doran determined that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. (snip)





I go where the facts take me. I've lived long enough to have experienced all sorts of doom and gloom scenarios painted by so -called "experts" NONE of which ever came to pass. Predictions of a New Ice Age come to mind especially when the same predictors of that failed scenario are among the loudest "Chicken Littles" on Global Warming. A few years ago, we were all being advised to stock up on canned food, firewood; sweaters and thermal underwear to survive the cooling effects of several volcanic eruptions. It took a couple years for that to be replaced by Global Warming alarmism which morphed into Climate Change when Global temperatures stabilized. On an unrelated but instructive note, I also remember that AIDS was predicted to be an epidemic in the heterosexual community. It never happened.


As I said in a previous post, there never was a scientific consensus that the earth was cooling. AID's is an epidemic in the heterosexual community in many countries, and a prediction like is not comparable to predictions about climate.




You claim that Global temperatures are increasing at a record pace and yet we have had long term temperature declines whose onset was even more rapid. One was the Little Ice Age. Another began around 1960 which helped create the New Ice Age prediction circa 1975 that died aborning.

No it wasn't. It has never changed as rapidly as it has in the past 20 years. The or 9 warmest years in the past century have all occurred in the past 10 years.

eagle2
07-22-2009, 09:36 PM
Arguably, unless and until China, India et all adopt 'Western' views towards the peripheral costs of pollution, green proposals which limit CO2 / greenhouse gas emissions only in the USA and Western Europe will result in a lower standard of living and also a DIRTIER / hotter planet ! Again, the reason for this is that when industrial production facilities operating under current Western regulations relocate to China or India under essentially zero regulations, the amount of greenhouse gas and pollution emissions of all kinds will absolutely be higher than it was before production was ceased at US or European facilities.

Most CO2 emissions come from power plants and automobiles. Americans and Europeans can't import electricity from China or India. They can't have people living in China and India drive them around in automobiles built to standards in China and India.

You keep talking about industrial production facilities moving to China and India. I doubt that industrial production facilities use a significant amount of power in this country, relative to the overall use. Homeowners use a significant amount of energy for personal use, such as lighting, air-conditioning, television, etc.. Many other businesses that can't relocate because of the type of business they do, use a significant amount of energy. Walmart, one of the largest businesses in the US, can't move their stores to China and India for Americans to shop. McDonald's can't move their restaurants to China and India for Americans to eat. They need to keep their facilities here in the US and use energy produced in the US. Homeowners can't import their electricity from China and India. For most industrial production facilities, I doubt that their cost of electricity is a significant factor in the cost of producing their products. I doubt that the overall cost of electricity needed for Boeing to build a 747 has any significance in the cost of building the airliner. The same thing for GM or Toyota vehicles manufactured in the US. The number of industrial production facilities where electricity is a major factor in the cost of their products is probably negligible.

Melonie
07-23-2009, 03:01 AM
Neither of them need fuel. The only cost is the capital. If you build a wind or solar power generator that last 50 years, once it is built, there is no other cost other than to maintain it

As posted before, from a grid standpoint this is NOT true. In the case of both wind and solar power, it is necessary to keep a fossil fueled generator spinning to instantly assume the load when wind velocity drops or when clouds pass in front of the sun ! True enough that the wind and solar generator 'owners' don't have to pay this cost, but all grid electricity customers pay for it in the form of higher prices for 'non-green' electricity.


Over the last 20 years, the cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80%. In the early 1980s, when the first utility-scale turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants can generate electricity for less than 5 cents/kWh with the Production Tax Credit

Again from a grid standpoint this is also not true. Yes the net purchase cost of just the wind generation equipment has dropped ( if you don't count the cost of the gov't tax credits and subsidies that the wind generator owners don't have to pay out of their own pocket). But the installation cost has risen. Again this doesn't directly affect the wind generator owners since it is the grid utility investors, and grid utility customers, who must bear the cost of running new power transmission lines up to the tops of mountains. It is also grid utility customers who must bear the much higher ongoing 'line loss' costs created on the grid as windpower is transported from those mountaintops to some distant city where the power generated can actually be consumed.


Again, the optimistic picture painted for media consumption does not match up with the day to day realities !

Melonie
07-23-2009, 03:21 AM
I doubt that industrial production facilities use a significant amount of power in this country, relative to the overall use. Homeowners use a significant amount of energy for personal use, such as lighting, air-conditioning, television, etc.. Many other businesses that can't relocate because of the type of business they do, use a significant amount of energy. Walmart, one of the largest businesses in the US, can't move their stores to China and India for Americans to shop. McDonald's can't move their restaurants to China and India for Americans to eat. They need to keep their facilities here in the US and use energy produced in the US. Homeowners can't import their electricity from China and India. For most industrial production facilities, I doubt that their cost of electricity is a significant factor in the cost of producing their products.

Industrial production is always a heavy energy user ... particularly when it involves metals i.e. automobiles, aircraft, appliances. Second on the list for energy use is the production of chemicals i.e. fertilizer, bleach, plastics. All of these products are 'importable' both in raw form and in the form of a manufactured end product.

With your example of aircraft production you confuse free markets with gov't contracts. The primary reason that no Asian aircraft industry exists is that 'western' gov'ts are locked into the de-facto subsidizing of their domestic aircraft industries via gov't contract purchases regardless of comparative costs.

Your examples of 'retail' industries are of course accurate ... retailers must locate where their customers are located. But the products sold by those retailers, from Korean washing machines to Chinese forks and spoons, to Vietnamese lettuce and tomatoes on a Big Mac, certainly are imported - as is their embedded 'energy' content.

threlayer
07-23-2009, 05:44 AM
^^^ while it is technically possible to enact tariffs / quotas on foreign imports at the US borders, it is NOT technically possible to erect a barrier that keeps out polluted air or greenhouse gases at the US border !!! Thus even if the US gov't was stupid enough to resurrect a Smoot-Hawley anti-foreign trade policy to protect remaining US industries and remaining US jobs, it is not going to impact the ability of China, India et al to 'export' CO2 and pollution to the US west coast !!!

I advocate placing tariffs on countries that restrict or place tariffs on US exports. Strategically placed, they would slow down unbalance of payments and would discourage foreign restrictions of "free trade." We need at least that advantage. This should also consider, to an extent, subsidies placed on production by all governments.

Further, I advocate placing tariffs on goods produced by countries not regulating pollution, worker safety, and worker wages, because we are not "playing on a level field." If we don't do this, essentially we are undercutting our own interests by allowing the "least common denominator" effect to strangle our economy. In effect the Chinese and Indians are sacrificing their workers and their (and our) health so they can profit from our ignorant "consumerism". This is something only governments can do. So the price of those imported goods goes up until parity is achieved. I, for one, do not feel right about supporting a government and production "system" that is highly polluting and exploitive toward their workers. I would rather see their economy grow more slowly than have to deal with the worldwide effects of their self-exploitation.

Eric Stoner
07-23-2009, 06:28 AM
No they weren't. All you're doing is repeating standard conservative talking points. Global warming is based on science, not ideology. Global warming denial is based entirely on ideology. There never was a scientific consensus that the climate was cooling. There was uncertainty whether the climate was cooling or warming. By the 1980's it was clear the climate was warming.


Yes there is. Neither of them need fuel. The only cost is the capital. If you build a wind or solar power generator that last 50 years, once it is built, there is no other cost other than to maintain it. If you build a coal fired generator, 30 or 40 years from now, you will still be buying coal every day to power it.

The cost of coal powered plants does not change much from year to year. The cost of wind powered generators has been dropping significantly from one year to the next.

http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_costs.html#How%20much%20does%20wind%20energy%2 0cost

(snip)
Over the last 20 years, the cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80%. In the early 1980s, when the first utility-scale turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants can generate electricity for less than 5 cents/kWh with the Production Tax Credit in many parts of the U.S., a price that is competitive with new coal- or gas-fired power plants.
(snip)


Again, the costs of electricity from wind and solar keep going down. Eventually one of them, or both, will be cheaper than coal. No matter how cheap coal gets, it will never be as cheap as wind or sun, which is free.

In addition, there are the costs of the side-effects from coal. There is the damage to the environment and damage to the health of people who breathe in the poison coming out of coal-fired plants. I read one estimate, that approximately 600,000 people a year die in China as a result of all of the pollution there.

It IS embarrassing for the GW crowd to admit that they were the same ones predicting a New ice Age back in the 1970's. There were cover articles about it in Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report.

Contrary to GW agitprop there is not the overwhelming consensus that they claim.
Many scientists espousing GW are just as compromised as the critics.

Eric Stoner
07-23-2009, 06:37 AM
Do you have any references for these problems in Spain? What about Denmark? As of 2007, close to 20% of electric produced in Denmark was coming from wind power, and the percentage has been increasing every year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

How is Denmark able to get so much energy from wind without wrecking their economy?


How much research have you and Melonie done on this issue? What credentials do you have to make you qualified to determine the validity of these scientific findings? Among those scientists who actually do research in the field of climate science, they are in overwhelming agreement about global warming. In a recent poll of scientists, of the climatologists who are active in research, 97% were in agreement that the climate is warming and humans are playing a role.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2009/2009-01-20-02.asp

(snip)
Doran determined that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. (snip)




As I said in a previous post, there never was a scientific consensus that the earth was cooling. AID's is an epidemic in the heterosexual community in many countries, and a prediction like is not comparable to predictions about climate.




No it wasn't. It has never changed as rapidly as it has in the past 20 years. The or 9 warmest years in the past century have all occurred in the past 10 years.

For Spains' problems, please read Professor Gabriel Calzada's report available at
tinyurl.com/d7z9ye.

Denmark invested heavily in wind. So should we. On a per capita basis, Denmark is one of Europe's wealthiest countries. What did NOT happen in Denmark was a huge increase in "green " jobs.

Neither Mel nor I is really doing the questioning. Reputable scientists with credentials just as impressive as GW proponents are doing the questioning.
I've never argued with the proposition that human activity is an aggravating factor to otherwise naturally occurring temperature increases which btw IS the overwhelming consensus. There is NOT a consensus that this will necessarily be a bad thing or that man cannot adjust and adapt.

AIDS was predicted to be an epidemic in the heterosexual community HERE in the U.S. I'm well aware of the situation in Africa, Brazil and Thailand.

eagle2
07-23-2009, 08:06 AM
Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report are not scientific journals.

Melonie
07-23-2009, 02:09 PM
Further, I advocate placing tariffs on goods produced by countries not regulating pollution, worker safety, and worker wages, because we are not "playing on a level field." If we don't do this, essentially we are undercutting our own interests by allowing the "least common denominator" effect to strangle our economy. In effect the Chinese and Indians are sacrificing their workers and their (and our) health so they can profit from our ignorant "consumerism". This is something only governments can do. So the price of those imported goods goes up until parity is achieved.

Well, the unpublicized point is that the US gov't and US states are just as large a party to 'cheap' imports ... that are so 'cheap' because they are produced with unscrubbed coal fired electricity, $2 an hour unskilled labor, essentially zero worker safety costs, essentially zero environmental compliance costs etc. If the 'level playing field' tariffs and restrictions you advocate were actually imposed, the cost of every product imported from the 'third world' would increase by some 30% ... from 'imported' groceries at WalMart to Asian big screen TV's and appliances. Additionally, the price of most US assembled products would increase as well because of the tariff leveed on 'components' outsourced to third world manufacturers. Thus your tariff, while having little or no effect on rich buyers of 'upscale' products, would have a devastating effect on the standard of living of the American 'poor' and 'middle class'. So what must the US gov't do then ... increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour and increase social welfare spending by 30% to maintain the same 'minimum acceptable' US standard of living, increase taxes on the 'middle class' to pay for it ?

threlayer
07-23-2009, 02:18 PM
^^ The 'standard of living of the American 'poor' and 'middle class'', in terms of the Chinese imports can stand to be lowered a little so that American businesses which provide them with jobs can have a level playing field. This is where I differ with my mostly populist feelings. Food, shelter, healthcare and safety are the most important commodities for those people. If I were in that situation and looking for work, that situation would be sufficient for minimalist me. At least I am consistent.

threlayer
07-23-2009, 02:33 PM
It IS embarrassing for the GW crowd to admit that they were the same ones predicting a New ice Age back in the 1970's. There were cover articles about it in Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report.That was because of particulates detected in the upper atmosphere, caused by several erupting volcanoes and speculated about because of jet aircraft effluents. The uncertainty at the time was the competition between sunlight absorption (cooling effect) because of the particulates and the greenhouse effect by O2 effluents. I recall this pretty clearly as my group had to deal with these reports at the time; we read professional journal articles about it and had several meteorological and environmental consultants reporting to us. Other effects we studied then were those of clorofluorocarbons and sulfur emissions. CO2 was recognized as an important factor even then, but enough data has not been collected at the time for reliable conclusions.


Contrary to GW agitprop there is not the overwhelming consensus that they claim. Many scientists espousing GW are just as compromised as the critics. NO. The critics are not properly educated in the technologies (monitoring, observation, modeling and prediction). There are always going to be maverick individual scientists; there always has been. But all recognized scientific societies now recognize the truth of Global Warming. As I've shown earlier this month in this thread. I personally believe that global warming has started a few decades ago, but I do not believe scientists yet know what safe levels of CO2 that will stabilize or reverse it. This is a pretty critical piece of knowledge.

Unless you understand the technologies involved and have studied the extensive reports on this, you ought to just stick with criticizing the political decisions and leave science to the scientists. After all politics can decide to do nothing, a little, or a lot; all scientists can do is bring the facts to the politicians.

There is never a mandatory connection between scientific fact and politics. Never has been and never will be.

That is because politicians will blame their failures on so many factors and people. While scientists will have only themselves to blame, as long as they are allowed to do science.

eagle2
07-23-2009, 02:56 PM
It IS embarrassing for the GW crowd to admit that they were the same ones predicting a New ice Age back in the 1970's. There were cover articles about it in Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report.

If you read scientific journals from the period, you would have read that more scientists at the time were predicting the climate would be warming not cooling. Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report are not peer-reviewed scientific journals and do not represent the scientific community.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

(snip)
The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
(snip)



Contrary to GW agitprop there is not the overwhelming consensus that they claim.
Many scientists espousing GW are just as compromised as the critics.

Yes there is. I recently posted a survey that showed 97% of climate scientists currently doing research, were in agreement that the climate is warming and human activity was contributing to it. The scientists' views are based on the facts and evidence. The critics' views are based on their ideology.

eagle2
07-23-2009, 03:06 PM
Industrial production is always a heavy energy user ... particularly when it involves metals i.e. automobiles, aircraft, appliances. Second on the list for energy use is the production of chemicals i.e. fertilizer, bleach, plastics. All of these products are 'importable' both in raw form and in the form of a manufactured end product.

No it isn't. Not compared to the overall costs of their products.



With your example of aircraft production you confuse free markets with gov't contracts. The primary reason that no Asian aircraft industry exists is that 'western' gov'ts are locked into the de-facto subsidizing of their domestic aircraft industries via gov't contract purchases regardless of comparative costs.

The airline industry is a free market industry, at least in the US. Boeing has no obligation to produce airplanes in the US for the different airlines. Many American airlines purchase their planes from Europe and Brazil, but Boeing, based in the US, is still the largest manufacturer of airliners. This completely contradicts your view that low wages and cheap electricity is the end all be all when it comes to manufacturing.



Your examples of 'retail' industries are of course accurate ... retailers must locate where their customers are located. But the products sold by those retailers, from Korean washing machines to Chinese forks and spoons, to Vietnamese lettuce and tomatoes on a Big Mac, certainly are imported - as is their embedded 'energy' content.

I doubt much lettuce comes from Vietnam. The US is still the world leader in agriculture.

Melonie
07-24-2009, 03:40 AM
No it isn't. Not compared to the overall costs of their products

This depends on the actual cost of energy. With Coal fired Chinese electricity at 3 cents/kWh this may be true. With US Northeastern electricity with wind and solar components at 12 cents/kWh it may NOT be true !


The airline industry is a free market industry, at least in the US. Boeing has no obligation to produce airplanes in the US for the different airlines

Again you miss (or ignore) the underlying point ... that sales of airliners to ( nearly bankrupt ) commercial airlines is NOT the main source of profit for a company like Boeing. What 'pays the bills' are the high profit margins stemming from gov't contracts for fighter jets, troop transport planes etc. And in that regard the US gov't is extremely UNlikely to issue contracts to AirBus of France or Embraer of Brazil !


I doubt much lettuce comes from Vietnam

In point of fact, the number of US vegetable farms has been declining, and the decline is projected to accelerate. Reasons of course are rising farm labor costs and rising 'embedded' energy costs in fertilizer, pesticides etc. The increase in the federal minimum wage, and the carbon tax, will only exacerbate this situation.

Yes America has an expanding niche for production of 'organic' vegetables. However, this business model depends on the growers being able to charge MUCH higher prices in a market of 'elite' customers which can support their much more expensive cost structure. This is basically a permutation of BMW continuing to produce 'high end' vehicles in Western Europe for export to 'elite' customers in other countries. But where 'commodity' vegetables are concerned, an increasing percentage are now imported ... from Mexico and particularly from Asia ... because the US cost structure is no longer economically viable. Don't you remember last summer's contaminated food scare ?

Eric Stoner
07-24-2009, 08:26 AM
That was because of particulates detected in the upper atmosphere, caused by several erupting volcanoes and speculated about because of jet aircraft effluents. The uncertainty at the time was the competition between sunlight absorption (cooling effect) because of the particulates and the greenhouse effect by O2 effluents. I recall this pretty clearly as my group had to deal with these reports at the time; we read professional journal articles about it and had several meteorological and environmental consultants reporting to us. Other effects we studied then were those of clorofluorocarbons and sulfur emissions. CO2 was recognized as an important factor even then, but enough data has not been collected at the time for reliable conclusions.

NO. The critics are not properly educated in the technologies (monitoring, observation, modeling and prediction). There are always going to be maverick individual scientists; there always has been. But all recognized scientific societies now recognize the truth of Global Warming. As I've shown earlier this month in this thread. I personally believe that global warming has started a few decades ago, but I do not believe scientists yet know what safe levels of CO2 that will stabilize or reverse it. This is a pretty critical piece of knowledge.

Unless you understand the technologies involved and have studied the extensive reports on this, you ought to just stick with criticizing the political decisions and leave science to the scientists. After all politics can decide to do nothing, a little, or a lot; all scientists can do is bring the facts to the politicians.

There is never a mandatory connection between scientific fact and politics. Never has been and never will be.

That is because politicians will blame their failures on so many factors and people. While scientists will have only themselves to blame, as long as they are allowed to do science.

If I hadn't read this, I wouldn't believe it. I'm supposed to defer to so -called "experts " and ignore some serious holes punched in their conclusions and thus blithely accept a lower standard of living for what ? Just to show my respect for science ? I may not be fully versed in the technologies used by G.W. proponents BUT their critics certainly are. Either the researchers and observers are using scientifically accepted methods of measuring, recording and analyzing climate data or they are not. When they ignore data or facts that don't fit their pet theories ( as a number have ) it is perfectly legitimate to point that out.

Whether you like it or not, flaws have been shown in the data and methodology of these so -called experts. The Earth's temperature has NOT gone up in rcent years and neither have ocean temperatures. Hurricanes have NOT increased in number and intensity ( as predicted ). E.g., Katrina was a HUMAN failure to properly maintain the levees, protect the Gulf wetlands and evacuate in a proper and timely manner.

There are HUNDREDS of credentialed experts who have examined the data and studies and expressed serious skepticism about Human caused GW. Some, but certainly not all, have received grants from "energy" interests just as many GW proponents have been funded by those who stand to gain BILLIONS from Cap & Trade and the like.

You continually claim that the Earth is warming "faster than it ever has" without recognizing that there is NO WAY to measure the past velocity of large scale climate changes before the invention of the thermometer. From first hand sources
alive in the 1300's when the Little Ice Age started, it's onset was reportedly very rapid and unexpected indeed. Nobody has been able to say whether the Earth cooled as rapidly then or at other times as it has supposedly warmed since about 1850.

When past climate history is pointed to ( e.g. how warm the Earth was from about 500 B.C. to about 400 A.D. ; it cooled ; then warmed again from 1000 A.D. to 1300 and then we had the " L.I.A. ". The Sahara was a lush, water filled, fertile area 10,000 years ago. Greenland and parts of Siberia were temperate and fertile up until about 1300 and haven't come close to returning to their former state. The Polar ice had been shrinking and has now stabilized while Antarctic Ice has been growing , after a period of shrinkage ) etc. I am supposed to ignore all that whenever some scientist waves his credentials in my face ? When NONE of them has even tried to explain such macro climato-historical FACTS that don't fit their theories ? You say that warming of Mars has been explained ? Not afaik ?
I don't buy the Martian "dust-storm" bullshit.

All I am saying is that BEFORE we embark on policies with major social and economic ramifications that we be SURE of the underlying science and that those policies will work. I don't think it makes sense to measure their effectiveness by how good we feel about ourselves. Especially when China, India et. al. will gleefully make up for any carbon reduction we actually accomplish. Btw, I am NOT saying that their ecological irresponsibility is an excuse for our own inaction. I am saying that unless and until thay are on board with genuine reductions, that whatever we do or don't do won't matter.

Eric Stoner
07-24-2009, 08:41 AM
Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report are not scientific journals.

Who ever said that they were ? What they did THEN is what they've been doing lately which is REPORTING what the scientists were and are claiming. National Geographic has been doing it for almost a decade.

What the mainstream media has been doing has been IGNORING the studies PUBLISHED that question the prevailing views about G.W. While noting every instance where a skeptic gets funding from an oil company they NEVER look into the funding of the alarmists.

eagle2
07-24-2009, 08:56 AM
Who ever said that they were ? What they did THEN is what they've been doing lately which is REPORTING what the scientists were and are claiming. National Geographic has been doing it for almost a decade.


No they weren't. What was being written in scientific journals was very different. Did you see the link I posted in my 2nd response to this?

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

(snip)
The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
(snip)

While Newsweek and US News were reporting global cooling, scientists were writing scientific journals predicting global warming at the time.

eagle2
07-24-2009, 09:00 AM
What the mainstream media has been doing has been IGNORING the studies PUBLISHED that question the prevailing views about G.W. While noting every instance where a skeptic gets funding from an oil company they NEVER look into the funding of the alarmists.

Reporting facts and evidence is not being alarmist.

Every single major scientific organization in the world is in agreement about global warming. So are the scientific academies of all of the major industrialized countries. There isn't just one industry providing most of the funding to promote propaganda like there is with the global warming deniers.

Eric Stoner
07-24-2009, 11:51 AM
Reporting facts and evidence is not being alarmist.

Every single major scientific organization in the world is in agreement about global warming. So are the scientific academies of all of the major industrialized countries. There isn't just one industry providing most of the funding to promote propaganda like there is with the global warming deniers.

Many of those "scientific organizations" include a LOT of lay people and others whose expertise is NOT centered on climate and geography. The U.N. Commission on G.W. was a particularly egregious example as many "scientists" were medical doctors, psychologists, chemists, biologists etc. Others are funded by folks like Al Gore and G.E. that stand to gain big-time from Carbon Credits and the like.

Btw, I am a SKEPTIC, NOT a Denier. I freely admit that there is evidence of G.W. I also concede the POSSIBILITY that human activity is causing it or more likely is aggravating an otherwise natural increase in global temperatures. However I question the causal link. Afaic it is not yet PROVEN. Even assuming arguendo that humans cause G.W., I question how "bad" G.W. will be and whether the positives might outweigh the negatives. The average size of the average European shrunk during the Little ice Age. The average Ancient Roman and Viking ate better and was larger. I question how effective any measures we take will actually be and whether such actions will be worth the cost. A warmer Earth means a longer growing season and less demand for fuel to keep warm.

Eric Stoner
07-24-2009, 11:53 AM
No they weren't. What was being written in scientific journals was very different. Did you see the link I posted in my 2nd response to this?

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

(snip)
The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
(snip)

While Newsweek and US News were reporting global cooling, scientists were writing scientific journals predicting global warming at the time.

HOW were these "scientists" predicting warming when the Earth was COOLING ?
Based on what ?

eagle2
07-24-2009, 07:42 PM
Based on the fact that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been and is increasing. The link between CO2 and warming climate has been established for around 100 years.

eagle2
07-24-2009, 08:13 PM
Many of those "scientific organizations" include a LOT of lay people an d others whose expertise is NOT centered on climate and geography. The U.N. Commission on G.W. was a particularly egregious example as many "scientists" were medical doctors, psychologists, chemists, biologists etc. Others are funded by folks like Al Gore and G.E. that stand to gain big-time from Carbon Credits and the like.


The IPCC reports come from scientists in the field and are reviewed by scientists in the field. All of the major scientific organizations related to climate science are in agreement about global warming.



Btw, I am a SKEPTIC, NOT a Denier. I freely admit that there is evidence of G.W. I also concede the POSSIBILITY that human activity is causing it or more likely is aggravating an otherwise natural increase in global temperatures. However I question the causal link. Afaic it is not yet PROVEN. Even assuming arguendo that humans cause G.W., I question how "bad" G.W. will be and whether the positives might outweigh the negatives. The average size of the average European shrunk during the Little ice Age. The average Ancient Roman and Viking ate better and was larger. I question how effective any measures we take will actually be and whether such actions will be worth the cost. A warmer Earth means a longer growing season and less demand for fuel to keep warm.

If the climate continues to warm, it will melt the ice sheets and raise water levels which will cause flooding in areas where millions of people live. Millions of people could possibly be displaced. Warmer climate will mean droughts and less food in many regions close to the equator, where it is warm already. Warmer climate means disease carrying insects will move further north. Heatwaves will cause many deaths. A recent heatwave in Australia caused morgues to overflow.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25009843-601,00.html

Measures taken against CO2 emissions will result in benefits other than reducing CO2. The main source of CO2 from human activity is burning fossil fuels, which also emit many other pollutants. Reducing the burning of fossils will also improve the quality of the air we breathe.

eagle2
07-24-2009, 09:07 PM
This depends on the actual cost of energy. With Coal fired Chinese electricity at 3 cents/kWh this may be true. With US Northeastern electricity with wind and solar components at 12 cents/kWh it may NOT be true !

Do you have any references showing the cost of electricity as being a significant part of the cost of manufacturing a product?




Again you miss (or ignore) the underlying point ... that sales of airliners to ( nearly bankrupt ) commercial airlines is NOT the main source of profit for a company like Boeing. What 'pays the bills' are the high profit margins stemming from gov't contracts for fighter jets, troop transport planes etc. And in that regard the US gov't is extremely UNlikely to issue contracts to AirBus of France or Embraer of Brazil !


Again, you're making things up based on your ideology, just like you did with BMW. According to your ideology, Boeing's commercial airliner business cannot be profitable because they pay their employees high wages and they don't get their electricity from high polluting coal-powered plants. Again, you're wrong about Boeing just like you were wrong about BMW. Boeing's commercial airliner business is very profitable. Half of Boeing's revenue comes from their commercial aircraft division. Their second quarter profits from commercial airplanes was $817 million compared to $876 million for defense. Their profits from commercial airplanes would have been even higher were it not for the delays in their new airliner, the 787.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/boeings-second-quarter-profit-jumps-17

The US government did issue a huge contract to Airbus for Air Force tanker planes.




In point of fact, the number of US vegetable farms has been declining, and the decline is projected to accelerate. Reasons of course are rising farm labor costs and rising 'embedded' energy costs in fertilizer, pesticides etc. The increase in the federal minimum wage, and the carbon tax, will only exacerbate this situation.

Yes America has an expanding niche for production of 'organic' vegetables. However, this business model depends on the growers being able to charge MUCH higher prices in a market of 'elite' customers which can support their much more expensive cost structure. This is basically a permutation of BMW continuing to produce 'high end' vehicles in Western Europe for export to 'elite' customers in other countries. But where 'commodity' vegetables are concerned, an increasing percentage are now imported ... from Mexico and particularly from Asia ... because the US cost structure is no longer economically viable. Don't you remember last summer's contaminated food scare ?

Again, you're making things up based on your ideology. You're assuming American farmers can't compete with farmers in third world countries because wages and electricity cost more in the US. The fact is, the US exports more in agricultural products than we import.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/fatus/monthlysummary.htm

The contaminated food scare came from domestically grown vegetables.

Melonie
07-25-2009, 03:38 AM
The fact is, the US exports more in agricultural products than we import.


yes but the US primarily exports corn, wheat and soybeans ... all of which can be planted and harvested using a very high degree of automation, and all of which collect generous gov't subsidies. What I SAID earlier specifically involved vegetables i.e. the lettuce and tomatoes on a Big Mac ... which involve a much higher farm labor component as well as much higher 'embedded' energy costs in the form of fertilizer and pesticides as well as greenhouse heating. Fruit and vegetable growers are typically combined in statistics, since they are both manual labor intensive, don't lend themselves to automation, and require a comparatively large amount of fertilizers and pesticides ( which in turn require huge amounts of energy inputs to produce). And for a fact, US fruit and vegetable growers have been going bankrupt at a frightening rate over the past several years.

a couple of recent news blurbs can be found at - Huge Greenhouse Tomato Grower files for Bankruptcy , and - Tomato and Vegetable Processor SK Foods files for Bankruptcy.


According to your ideology, Boeing's commercial airliner business cannot be profitable because they pay their employees high wages and they don't get their electricity from high polluting coal-powered plants

As was the case above, this is not what I SAID. My point was that Boeing ( and for that matter AirBus ) are not primarily driven by free market forces, but rely on gov't contracts to 'pay their bills'. This is still the case with your second quarter financial statistics. Also, those same statistics distort the share of profits attributable to gov't provided tax breaks, grants and subsidies Boeing receives. These figures are 'missing' from Boeing's public accounting, but were certainly not missed in the WTO complaint filed by AirBus ...



I would also add that since AirBus' share of gov't contract business is smaller than Boeing's, the directors of AirBus have indeed turned to China ( specifically a new A320 factory in Tianjin China ) to reduce their labor and energy related production costs to the point where the company can remain profitable ...




Do you have any references showing the cost of electricity as being a significant part of the cost of manufacturing a product

An obvious example is the huge energy component in primary metals - see which in turn becomes an 'embedded' energy cost for manufacturers incorporating those primary metals into a manufactured end product. The 'poster child' example is probably aluminum, which has a far lower delivered cost in China than in the USA .


The contaminated food scare came from domestically grown vegetables

In point of fact, the source of contaminated food that was eventually identified was domestic. But the early publicity implied that it was foreign in origin, and drew attention to the rapidly increasing number of food imports ...



(snip)"The value of food imports from China was exceeded only by that of North American neighbors Canada and Mexico.

The rise in food imports from China reflects robust demand for these products as well as the eagerness of Chinese exporters to supply them. Chinese prices of fish, fruit, and vegetables are as low as one-fifth to one-tenth of those in the United States (Gale and Tuan).

Food imports from China include a broad range of items, but about three fourths fall into a few broad categories: fish and shellfish, juices, canned fruits, and other fruit, vegetable, and nut products"(snip)

eagle2
07-26-2009, 06:06 PM
yes but the US primarily exports corn, wheat and soybeans ... all of which can be planted and harvested using a very high degree of automation, and all of which collect generous gov't subsidies. What I SAID earlier specifically involved vegetables i.e. the lettuce and tomatoes on a Big Mac ... which involve a much higher farm labor component as well as much higher 'embedded' energy costs in the form of fertilizer and pesticides as well as greenhouse heating. Fruit and vegetable growers are typically combined in statistics, since they are both manual labor intensive, don't lend themselves to automation, and require a comparatively large amount of fertilizers and pesticides ( which in turn require huge amounts of energy inputs to produce). And for a fact, US fruit and vegetable growers have been going bankrupt at a frightening rate over the past several years.


The US is the second leading lettuce producing country behind China. Of course China has over three times as many people as the US, so they have many more people to feed. The US is a net exporter of lettuce, second only to Spain in exports.

http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/vegetables/lettuce_profile.cfm

Eric Stoner
07-27-2009, 07:34 AM
Based on the fact that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been and is increasing. The link between CO2 and warming climate has been established for around 100 years.

Then WHY hasn't the Earth been warming over the last ten years or so ? That's the Earth as a WHOLE; including both SOUTHERN and Northern Hemispheres ?

Why has polar ice formation stabilized over the last two years ?

Why the scramble to rename "Global Warming" - " Climate Change" ?

Eric Stoner
07-27-2009, 07:50 AM
The IPCC reports come from scientists in the field and are reviewed by scientists in the field. All of the major scientific organizations related to climate science are in agreement about global warming.



If the climate continues to warm, it will melt the ice sheets and raise water levels which will cause flooding in areas where millions of people live. Millions of people could possibly be displaced. Warmer climate will mean droughts and less food in many regions close to the equator, where it is warm already. Warmer climate means disease carrying insects will move further north. Heatwaves will cause many deaths. A recent heatwave in Australia caused morgues to overflow.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25009843-601,00.html

Measures taken against CO2 emissions will result in benefits other than reducing CO2. The main source of CO2 from human activity is burning fossil fuels, which also emit many other pollutants. Reducing the burning of fossils will also improve the quality of the air we breathe.

Yes. Major scientific organizations agree that Global Warming OCCURRED. They are having a little trouble explaining what's been happening since about 1998 to 2000 depending on whose numbers tickle your fancy.

Anyone who says that melting polar ice sheets will raise water levels FLUNKED High School Science. Ice will be changed to a MORE dense form i.e. WATER and sea levels will rise ? What about the lessened displacement from the melted ice ?

Assuming the worst, and it's a HUGE assumption, some people may have to move from where they probably never should have moved to in the first place. I have never felt a shred of sympathy for people who build on flood plains or on storm threatened coasts.

How will G.W. cause a NET loss of water vapor ? In fact water vapor is classified as a "greenhouse gas". Sooner or later it gets precipitated back to the ground as rain, snow, sleet and hail. Remember ? "Matter is never created or destroyed " ?
"Only it's form changes" ?

Man has adapted for CENTURIES to climatic extremes and changes. What is going to stop us from adapting to whatever changes might occur in the future ?

Btw, G.W. keeps dropping in polls as a concern among people polled World -Wide and the younger the people, the less likely they are to be concerned. China and India have made it clear that they have NO intention ( zero, zip, nada ! ) of doing anything to slow their own economic growth.

Eric Stoner
07-27-2009, 10:49 AM
The Global Warming Theory is a scientific theory, which is an explanation of a certain phenomena.



If you go by five year averages, the earth has warmed in the last 10 years.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg



The link between CO2 and global warming is well established. The issue isn't just how warm the climate is or was. The issue is how rapidly the climate is warming. The earth has never warmed as rapidly before as it is warming now.

Warming on Mars has been explained. Global warming deniers just don't want to listen.

Your argument is supported by NASA's temperature charts which are problematic for several reasons. First, NASA has been caught revising it's own temperature numbers by adjusting pre-1970 numbers down and post 1970 numbers up. The U.K.'s Hadley Center uses the same methodology as NASA but shows that measurements since 1998 are DOWN. Tempertures NOW are about what they were in 1941 and 1878. Both NASA and the Hadley Center use a LOT of temperature measurements taken in URBAN areas. Fewer trees, less grass, a LOT more asphalt equals HIGHER temperatures. It is also important to note that thermometers NOW are much more accurate than those used in the past.
Satellite measurements from the University of Alabama at Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems both show global warming has leveled off since 1998.

Currently the Earth's global average temperature is 59 degrees Farenheit. We are supposed to experience horrible problems if it gets to 61. Well guess what ? The Earth has been as high as 62 ! From 900 to 1100 A.D. when the Earth had record harvests worldwide and increased prosperity. Btw, it hit a record low global average temp. of 57 in 1650 during the latter half of the Little Ice Age.

Most troubling for GW proponents is the science that indicates ( not proves, for now it indicates ) that higher CO2 levels RESULT from Global Warming and do not cause it.

The GISS numbers are highly questionable because they forgot that Russia has an October like everyone else. Their temperature numbers repeated the September temperature reading for Russia thus posting an alarming 10 degree increase. Until somebody at NASA- Watch checked their data and noticed the readings for September and October for Russia were identical.

One of the best pieces on all this ( that holds up against the usual charges ) is Steve McIntyre's 2/23/07 posting on climateaudit.org.

The supposed "debunking" of "no G.W. since 1998" on sites like skepticalscience.com are themselves bunk because they rely on the same partially discredited NASA ( HANSEN ) temperature data.

threlayer
07-27-2009, 11:11 AM
If I hadn't read this, I wouldn't believe it. I'm supposed to defer to so -called "experts " and ignore some serious holes punched in their conclusions and thus blithely accept a lower standard of living for what ? Just to show my respect for science ? I may not be fully versed in the technologies used by G.W. proponents BUT their critics certainly are. Either the researchers and observers are using scientifically accepted methods of measuring, recording and analyzing climate data or they are not. When they ignore data or facts that don't fit their pet theories ( as a number have ) it is perfectly legitimate to point that out. You may do and believe whatever you choose to do and ignore. You can ignore whatever data of facts you chose to. But people concerned about the fate of the world's peoples and climate effects are working to uncover the actual truth. I believe some of those experts may be over-optimisitc over their "facts" but the world's scientists have based teir cnclusions on the preponderance fo the bes data available. You contend that those people are deluded and that your set of "experts" are better qualified. That is the essential issue we are posing here.


Whether you like it or not, flaws have been shown in the data and methodology of these so -called experts. The Earth's temperature has NOT gone up in rcent years and neither have ocean temperatures. Hurricanes have NOT increased in number and intensity ( as predicted ). E.g., Katrina was a HUMAN failure to properly maintain the levees, protect the Gulf wetlands and evacuate in a proper and timely manner. Recent years (you say 10) mean nothing in the scope of things. I could call your attention to the recent extreme hot and dry conditions in the southwestern US an Europe and the more severe hurricane seasons over the world in the last few years.


There are HUNDREDS of credentialed experts who have examined the data and studies and expressed serious skepticism about Human caused GW. Some, but certainly not all, have received grants from "energy" interests just as many GW proponents have been funded by those who stand to gain BILLIONS from Cap & Trade and the like. There are hundreds of scientific societies, comprised of the top and most experienced scientists who contend that your individual "experts" have flawed data and reasoning. This data will never be perfect, and the preponderance of information over a longer period of time should rule over short term anecdotal data.


You continually claim that the Earth is warming "faster than it ever has" without recognizing that there is NO WAY to measure the past velocity of large scale climate changes before the invention of the thermometer. From first hand sources alive in the 1300's when the Little Ice Age started, it's onset was reportedly very rapid and unexpected indeed. Nobody has been able to say whether the Earth cooled as rapidly then or at other times as it has supposedly warmed since about 1850. I contend that only the last 50 to 100 years is relevant, regarding CO2 emissions. We have had thermometers for that long.


When past climate history is pointed ....warming of Mars has been explained ? [yadda, yadd, yadda] Again only the past 50-100 years are relevant here. Whatever natural warming is cause by natural processes for which humans are not responsible we cannot effect. Humans can only find a way to protect themselves from that. To the extent that humans are causing incrased effects, only humans can and should control that.


All I am saying is that BEFORE we embark on policies with major social and economic ramifications that we be SURE of the underlying science and that those policies will work. I don't think it makes sense to measure their effectiveness by how good we feel about ourselves. Especially when China, India et. al. will gleefully make up for any carbon reduction we actually accomplish. As in all complex systems for which ALL data cannot be obtained 100% reliably, and that is almost all systems, humans ought to be able to plan and prepare for an uncertain future. China and India and Brazil (deforestation) are irrelevant if the rest of humans decide that we ALL must reduce CO2 and deforestations. Ways will be found; "we will have ways of making them behave."

Btw, I am NOT saying that their ecological irresponsibility is an excuse for our own inaction. I am saying that unless and until thay are on board with genuine reductions, that whatever we do or don't do won't matter. Actually you are. They have stated that they will do nothing unless other countries start doing something FIRST. Momentum has to be available and we can do that; and then they MUST follow thru. That is a 'precondition' we can live with. You have to raise the engine speed before letting out on the clutch unless you want to experience the engine stalling out.

Eric Stoner
07-27-2009, 11:18 AM
You may do and believe whatever you choose to do and ignore. You can ignore whatever data of facts you chose to. But people concerned about the fate of the world's peoples and climate effects are working to uncover the actual truth. I believe some of those experts may be over-optimisitc over their "facts" but the world's scientists have based teir cnclusions on the preponderance fo the bes data available. You contend that those people are deluded and that your set of "experts" are better qualified. That is the essential issue we are posing here.

Recent years (you say 10) mean nothing in the scope of things. I could call your attention to the recent extreme hot and dry conditions in the southwestern US an Europe and the more severe hurricane seasons over the world in the last few years.

There are hundreds of scientific societies, comprised of the top and most experienced scientists who contend that your individual "experts" have flawed data and reasoning. This data will never be perfect, and the preponderance of information over a longer period of time should rule over short term anecdotal data.

I contend that only the last 50 to 100 years is relevant, regarding CO2 emissions. We have had thermometers for that long.

Again only the past 50-100 years are relevant here. Whatever natural warming is cause by natural processes for which humans are not responsible we cannot effect. Humans can only find a way to protect themselves from that. To the extent that humans are causing incrased effects, only humans can and should control that.

As in all complex systems for which ALL data cannot be obtained 100% reliably, and that is almost all systems, humans ought to be able to plan and prepare for an uncertain future. China and India and Brazil (deforestation) are irrelevant if the rest of humans decide that we ALL must reduce CO2 and deforestations. Ways will be found; "we will have ways of making them behave."
Actually you are. They have stated that they will do nothing unless other countries start doing something FIRST. Momentum has to be available and we can do that; and then they MUST follow thru. That is a 'precondition' we can live with. You have to raise the engine speed before letting out on the clutch unless you want to experience the engine stalling out.

Moose- Muffins ! How can only the last 50 to 100 years of climate data be relevant when we aren't even close to Earth's highest recorded avaerage temperature ?

Why shouldn't the underlying data be questioned when 89% of temperature monitoring stations here in the U.S. do NOT meet the basic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) standard of being at least 30 meters ( 100 feet ) from ANY artificial heat source like an air conditioning exhaust or PAVEMENT ? Most of the temperature data going into NASA and GISS reports comes from URBAN areas and the thermometers are usually NOT placed in accord with NOAA standards.

Do you read your own stuff ? "We will find ways to make them behave " ? Are you serious ? Sounds like "The Lord will provide" to me.
Brazil, China, India and others will revise their policies when THEY think it is in their interest to do so. At the latest U.N. conference in Italy, China and India were unequivocally clear that they will do NOTHING to reduce CO2 emissions REGARDLESS of what the rest of the world does.

Btw, my use of "Moose-muffins" was really just a little salute to Sarah Palin on her resignation as Alaska's Governor. She proves that anyone can be a governor no matter how ignorant.

threlayer
07-27-2009, 12:16 PM
...How can only the last 50 to 100 years of climate data be relevant when we aren't even close to Earth's highest recorded avaerage temperature ?Simply it's because we've only been spewing out huge amounts of CO2 and cutting down the tropical forest for only that long.


Why shouldn't the underlying data be questioned when 89% of temperature monitoring stations here in the U.S. do NOT meet the basic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) standard of being at least 30 meters ( 100 feet ) from ANY artificial heat source like an air conditioning exhaust or PAVEMENT ? Most of the temperature data going into NASA and GISS reports comes from URBAN areas and the thermometers are usually NOT placed in accord with NOAA standards. NO Most are at airports removed from artificial heat sources, though some are arguably close to dark pavement. Airports are NOT in urban areas; the closest are in the suburbs because of recent development, though originally in rural areas.


Do you read your own stuff ? "We will find ways to make them behave " ? Are you serious ? Sounds like "The Lord will provide" to me. Brazil, China, India and others will revise their policies when THEY think it is in their interest to do so. At the latest U.N. conference in Italy, China and India were unequivocally clear that they will do NOTHING to reduce CO2 emissions REGARDLESS of what the rest of the world does.We have ways of making them behave; and the "we" at that time will be the rest of the world. Example Bangladesh and the Yellow River regions, as it's being flooded, will have mass exoduses and/or mass casualties. Those two countries will have the first mass casualties. The world can starve them out financially by refusing to deal further with them. Foreign producers will just have to be content with that, as a result of dealing with a corrupt and recalcitrant government. BTW it shouldn't last too long before they follow thru. Further, this is where a "big stick" may be needed, which our military likes to imagine.


Btw, my use of "Moose-muffins" was really just a little salute to Sarah Palin on her resignation as Alaska's Governor. She proves that anyone can be a governor no matter how ignorant.And here I thought it was all those Sarah quotes.

Eric Stoner
07-28-2009, 11:12 AM
Simply it's because we've only been spewing out huge amounts of CO2 and cutting down the tropical forest for only that long.

NO Most are at airports removed from artificial heat sources, though some are arguably close to dark pavement. Airports are NOT in urban areas; the closest are in the suburbs because of recent development, though originally in rural areas.

We have ways of making them behave; and the "we" at that time will be the rest of the world. Example Bangladesh and the Yellow River regions, as it's being flooded, will have mass exoduses and/or mass casualties. Those two countries will have the first mass casualties. The world can starve them out financially by refusing to deal further with them. Foreign producers will just have to be content with that, as a result of dealing with a corrupt and recalcitrant government. BTW it shouldn't last too long before they follow thru. Further, this is where a "big stick" may be needed, which our military likes to imagine.

And here I thought it was all those Sarah quotes.

This is classic factual cherry-picking and wishful thinking.

It is a documented historical fact that Earth's highest average temperature occurred between 900 and 1100 A.D. That's why Greenland was so habitable.
We are not close to those readings and temperature levels have stabilized since 1998.

While the monitoring stations that comply with NOAA standards are mostly at airports, they are only a fraction of temperature monitoring stations. Airports have NO SHADE. Trees make it kinda tough to take off and land planes. They have plenty of concrete and asphalt. In the NYC area, typically the highest temperature readings come from our three major airports ( JFK, LaGuardia and Newark.) Newark is usually the HOTTEST reporting site in the Tri-State area, especially in the summertime.

How do you suggest we make them behave ? China owns a LOT of our debt. If we piss them off they'll stop buying it and may even dump it on the bond markets. We have billions in trade with China, India and Brazil.

Are you suggesting we threaten China militarily ? Or India ? Both are NUCLEAR powers. China has been trotting all over the world making it's own bilateral trade agreements. Despite all our work fighting AIDS in Africa, China is more popular than we are because of all the development it has sponsored.

threlayer
07-28-2009, 12:30 PM
It is a documented historical fact that Earth's highest average temperature occurred between 900 and 1100 A.D. that's why Greenland was so habitable.
We are not close to those readings and temperature levels have stabilized since 1998.So how high were the oceanic water tables? Did they have to abandon southeast Asia or the Greek islands? Also you have stated that this was the period of the "Little Ice Age." So, maybe I'm not so sure about all that effect occurring in your stated historical times.


While the monitoring stations that comply with NOAA ?standards are mostly at airports, they are only a fraction of temperature monitoring stations. Airports have NO SHADE. Trees make it kinda tough to take off and land planes. They have plenty of concrete and asphalt. In the NYC area, typically the highest temperature readings come from our three major airports ( JFK, LaGuardia and Newark.) Newark is usually the HOTTEST reporting site in the Tri-State area, especially in the summertime.It is possible to develop and apply average condition 'correction factors' for fixed locations which give a readings very close to an unoccupied area of that geneal region.


How do you suggest we make them behave ? China owns a LOT of our debt. If we piss them off they'll stop buying it and may even dump it on the bond markets. We have billions in trade with China, India and Brazil. First, we're going to have to come to terms with selling our debt to a single credit supplier. Yeah, I know; how likely is that? It certainly would be an international effort of the countries aligned with the need to control human intervention in global warming. One tactic would be to demonstrate the effects of rising water tables and that effect on stability of the populace and economics of the country -- that those non-aligned countries would have to face ALONE. China recently has accepted a 2 degree rise limit as a goal, but they have not devised any sort of plan to achieve it. So I understand.

Personally, I don't believe we have the technology to determine how we can tie CO2 and deforestation into global warming yet -- that is, how much our CO2 and deforestation have to be limited to achieve any numerical goal. We can, however, determine simpler effects like how much land will become salt-water inundated by so much loss of the polar icecaps. But we cannot surmise too accurately how much local weather will be affected (i.e., droughts, hurricanes/typhoons, tornadoes, monsoons, desert proliferation, regional crop reductions, etc.).


Despite all our work fighting AIDS in Africa, China is more popular than we are because of all the development it has sponsored. Like Somalia/Darfur? China's foreign relations are like a bull in a China shop. You don't know where the next damage is going to occur, but you know it surely will happen. This is becoming annoyingly obvious. Further the US has been strongly focussed elsewhere for decades.

threlayer
07-28-2009, 12:41 PM
Here's some infro fro the Wikipedia about Greenland...

"The weight of the massive Greenlandic ice cap has depressed the central land area to form a basin lying more than 300 m (1,000 ft) below sea level.[28] The ice flows generally to the coast from the center of the island."

"All towns and settlements of Greenland are situated along the ice-free coast, with the population being concentrated along the west coast. The northeastern part of Greenland is not part of any municipality, but is the site of the world's largest national park, Northeast Greenland National Park."

"The extreme north of Greenland, Peary Land, is not covered by an ice sheet, because the air there is too dry to produce snow, which is essential in the production and maintenance of an ice sheet. If the Greenland ice sheet were to completely melt away, sea level would rise by more than 7 m (23 ft) and Greenland would most likely become an archipelago."

"In 2007, the existence of a "new" island was announced. Named "Uunartoq Qeqertoq" (English: Warming Island), this island has always been present off the coast of Greenland, but was covered by an ice sheet. This ice sheet was discovered to be shrinking rapidly in 2002, and by 2007 had completely melted away, leaving the exposed island. The island was named "Place of the Year" by the Oxford Atlas of the World in 2007. Ben Keene, the atlas's editor, commented: "In the last two or three decades, global warming has reduced the size of glaciers throughout the Arctic and earlier this year, news sources confirmed what climate scientists already knew: water, not rock, lay beneath this ice bridge on the east coast of Greenland. More islets are likely to appear as the sheet of frozen water covering the world’s largest island continues to melt." "

threlayer
07-28-2009, 12:50 PM
Your "Little Ice Age" temperature blip is dwarfed by the recent rise in global temperatures, as shown by a graph in the wikipedia article on the Little Ice Age. It certainly shows NO significant cooling in the last decade; in fact it show a very rapid temperature rise. Also note this excerpt from the article....

"End of Little Ice Age
Beginning around 1850, the climate began warming and the Little Ice Age ended. Some global warming critics believe that Earth's climate is still recovering from the Little Ice Age and that human activity is not the decisive factor in present temperature trends, but this idea is not widely accepted. Instead, mainstream scientific opinion on climate change is that warming over the last 50 years is caused primarily by the increased proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by human activity. There is less agreement over the warming from 1850 to 1950."

And from the Global Warming wikpiedia article...

"Skepticism
See also: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
A small number of scientists or political figures dispute all or some of the generally-accepted consensus on global warming science. Their objections include questions about whether global warming is actually occurring, if human activity is truly to blame, and if it is really as great a threat as has been alleged. Prominent global warming skeptics include Frederick Seitz (died in 200eight), Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, John Christy, Harrison Schmitt, and Robert Balling. According to the newsmagazine Frontline, many of these scientists work or have worked for organizations that have received donations from large energy corporations.[130][131]"

where:
130 de Granados, Oriana Zill, "The Doubters of Global Warming", Frontline, April 24, 2007.
131 Revkin, Andrew C., "Skeptics Dispute Climate Worries and Each Other", New York Times, March 8, 2009.


.

goreantx
07-28-2009, 12:55 PM
So when this passes, do farmers have to pay for their cow farts? I can just see herds of cattle walking around with fart meters that wirelessly link up to a tower that transmits to outer space and then back down to a guy who gets paid a couple hundred thousand bucks to keep track of cow farts. I bet his stripper will be one happy girl, zooming around in her gas guzzling sports car...

;)

threlayer
07-28-2009, 01:06 PM
^^ No. That's a little funny diversion placed into the ether by Rush Limbaugh. Cattle will continue to eat too much fiber.