quote Originally posted by newf: Pushing? I don't think so. Dragging their heels more like it. What has been done so far?

Well there is a giant list.
Federal regulations closed virtually all of the steel mills that were the backbone of our once great country. Off to other places they went.
Anti pollution laws that are so cumbersome that you can't afford to have a manufacturing company here, so off they go to other places.
No more incandescent bulbs=no more bulbs produced here. Even though the ones they approve have a gob of Mercury in each one, hey it saves a watt or two.
CA has passed The Global Warming Final Solutions Act, which will drive another 1.4 million jobs out of the state.
It was based on as study done by a guy who lied about one degree he had, never had it, and the other degree he claimed he had was bought off of a Russian web site.
And they want no more suburbs built to cut down on driving. And there will only be high rise apartment buildings in the cities approved. It will force future generations into the cities and mass transit. Californians will be required to have tracking devices on their cars, and after 5 miles on the freeway it will cost you $2.50/mile.
They want to raise gas to $9/gal to keep people out of their cars.
CA will become China. HEY love it or leave it.
And If the Dems get their way Cap and Trade will be passed in lame duck fashion. Then you will get house inspections to see if you are complying with the new regulations. The White House will soon be putting into effect regulations that cover 20 different appliances that you will be forced to buy once yours goes on the blink, no repairing the old one. Total cost of the 20 can be up to 30k.
Cap and trade will even have a list of environmentally friendly trees, if you want to plant a tree on your own property, you can only plant one of those.
When all done it will be so much fun living here in China2.
What a wonderful country we will have when they get it all in place.
I am sure you want to have everyone live this way, if you call it living.
All base on phony numbers, yea they were caught, and fuzzy unproven science.
I look at the whole thing as one big giant mental condition.

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 10-13-2010).]

The science is far from settled. People on both sides seem all too eager to jump to conclusions. We humans don't yet possess the level of understanding, or raw computing power, to determine if and how much we are warming up the planet. At least, not yet.

But, just for a minute, let's put that argument aside and talk about Carbon Credits (aka Cap & Trade). It is based on the assumption that CO2 emissions are causing global warming, which is something humanity cannot yet determine accurately. The idea behind Cap & Trade is to allow businesses that produce low emissions to sell Carbon Credits to those who generate high emissions. So basically, it's a wealth redistribution scheme.

Now, let's think about the kinds of businesses that generate lots of emissions. They would probably include power plants, steel mills, heavy manufacturing, and airlines, among other things. Types of businesses that produce low emissions would probably be service-oriented businesses. So basically, manufacturing would cost more, and customer service would cost less.

Let's think about that for a minute. What is one of the biggest problems in our current economy? People complain a lot about manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas, and how transforming into a service-based economy could be our downfall. Cap and Trade would most likely exacerbate that problem.

Also, keep in mind that this will be a global scheme. So the more developed nations would probably find themselves buying Carbon Credits from the less developed ones. In other words, it will be a means by which wealth can be redistributed from developed nations to third-world nations (so I guess their dictators can build more opulent palaces, or they can buy more heavy equipment to bulldoze their rain forests faster).

Doesn't that sound wonderful? I'm sure it will fix all our economic problems. I bet it will cure global warming, too. (obvious sarcasm)

quote Originally posted by Formula88: It bugs you that people are so sure it's not happening, yet you're so sure it is. So how is that any different, when as you say, both sides can copy and paste data? So why is it you're so unwilling to listen to an opposing view, while expecting the opposing view to listen to yours?

Always willing to listen, I never said I was sure of anything but there is a lot of evidence that the climate is changing. I could care less if the opposing view as you call them listen or not. My point is and will be that there are many scientists that are studying what is happening with the earths climate and the reasons for it and the consensus appears to be that man is having a major impact on the both the earths environment and climate. To what degree (no pun intended) seems to be debatable.

quote Originally posted by newf: and the consensus appears to be that man is having a major impact on the both the earths environment and climate.

In science, consensus is *meaningless*. Until you, and many others get that, then unproductive fallacies will be perpetuated.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Well there is a giant list. Federal regulations closed virtually all of the steel mills that were the backbone of our once great country. Off to other places they went. Anti pollution laws that are so cumbersome that you can't afford to have a manufacturing company here, so off they go to other places. No more incandescent bulbs=no more bulbs produced here. Even though the ones they approve have a gob of Mercury in each one, hey it saves a watt or two. CA has passed The Global Warming Final Solutions Act, which will drive another 1.4 million jobs out of the state. It was based on as study done by a guy who lied about one degree he had, never had it, and the other degree he claimed he had was bought off of a Russian web site. And they want no more suburbs built to cut down on driving. And there will only be high rise apartment buildings in the cities approved. It will force future generations into the cities and mass transit. Californians will be required to have tracking devices on their cars, and after 5 miles on the freeway it will cost you $2.50/mile. They want to raise gas to $9/gal to keep people out of their cars. CA will become China. HEY love it or leave it. And If the Dems get their way Cap and Trade will be passed in lame duck fashion. Then you will get house inspections to see if you are complying with the new regulations. The White House will soon be putting into effect regulations that cover 20 different appliances that you will be forced to buy once yours goes on the blink, no repairing the old one. Total cost of the 20 can be up to 30k. Cap and trade will even have a list of environmentally friendly trees, if you want to plant a tree on your own property, you can only plant one of those. When all done it will be so much fun living here in China2. What a wonderful country we will have when they get it all in place. I am sure you want to have everyone live this way, if you call it living. All base on phony numbers, yea they were caught, and fuzzy unproven science. I look at the whole thing as one big giant mental condition.

Any facts that show that's the reason why the manufacturing jobs went to China?

Has this Cap and Trade bill been passed yet?

Your Light bulb facts seem to be wrong. A gob of Mercury?

In July 2008 the US EPA published a data sheet stating that the net system emission of mercury for CFL lighting was lower than for incandescent lighting of comparable lumen output. This was based on the average rate of mercury emission for US electricity production and average estimated escape of mercury from a CFL put into a landfill.[50] Coal-fired plants also emit other heavy metals, sulfur, and carbon dioxide.
Net mercury emissions for CFL and incandescent lamps, based on EPA FAQ sheet, assuming average US emission of 0.012 mg of mercury per kilowatt-hour and 14% of CFL mercury contents escapes to environment after land fill disposal.In the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if all 270 million compact fluorescent lamps sold in 2007 were sent to landfill sites, that this would represent around 0.13 metric tons, or 0.1% of all U.S. emissions of mercury (around 104 metric tons that year.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...act_fluorescent_lamp

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-13-2010).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Any facts that show that's the reason why the manufacturing jobs went to China?

I could dig them up but it is a waste of time.
You have proven that facts the are opposite what you believe are worthless to put before you.
All the facts in the world wouldn't move you two degrees.
I have lived in this country for over sixty years and have watched it unfold.
You sir sit north of the border and have opinions about our country base on your intellect and little else.
And I am very happy you have no influence on what happens here, we are screwed up enough already.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: I could dig them up but it is a waste of time. You have proven that facts the are opposite what you believe are worthless to put before you. All the facts in the world wouldn't move you two degrees. I have lived in this country for over sixty years and have watched it unfold. You sir sit north of the border and have opinions about our country base on your intellect and little else. And I am very happy you have no influence on what happens here, we are screwed up enough already.

Your claim that the reason for the move of all the manufacturing to China seems too simplistic is all I'm saying. In other threads it's been blamed on labour unions. If you had said that certain laws may have contributed to the move I would have been more apt to believe. I could easily be moved in my opinions if I were offered some sort of credible evidence.

Please show these facts, you've done a bang up job so far.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-13-2010).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Your claim that the reason for the move of all the manufacturing to China seems too simplistic is all I'm saying. In other threads it's been blamed on labour unions. If you had said that certain laws may have contributed to the move I would have been more apt to believe. I could easily be moved in my opinions if I were offered some sort of credible evidence. Please show these facts, you've done a bang up job so far.

If you were an American liberal and had a vote here then it would, might be worth the effort.

I thought not.

quote Originally posted by newf: Always willing to listen, I never said I was sure of anything but there is a lot of evidence that the climate is changing.

Yes, it is changing. It always has and always will. The issue here is whether mankind can cause it. The answer is no. You just have to examine the historical data that we now know. And the fact that the earth has gone through much warmer era's than we currently have. You also have to wake up to the fact that there are well documented frauds in the meteorological research community. These frauds are driven by the search for.... wait for it..... government money. The politicians pushing this are driven by.... wait for it.... socialism. Yeah that is right, back to Lennon and Trotsky again. Share the wealth of the proletariat with the impoverished masses.

The evidence has been posted on the forum ad nauseum. You want to believe the lie and you are keeping a fair number engaged in a fatuous arguement. Look at the facts. The world has been cooling for the past decade. Sure it is not a straight line down; it is still downward. The sun is still in a solar minimum. There is one lonely sunspot tracking and you can see it here http://spaceweather.com/

When my snowblower is having a workout in the very near future, I'll think about you sunning yourself in Balmy Newfoundland (LOL) or floating away on a shrinking iceberg (LOL) or saving the endangered polar bears (who are doing really well as per the Innuit) or feeding starving seals.

The whole Global Warming scam is dead in the water, and the new "Climate Change" replacement is going to also fail because it is based on errant science pure and simple. If the climate changes, just look up. It is that simple.

Arn

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 10-13-2010).]

quote Originally posted by newf: I thought not.

I have read virtually everything you have ever posted and your ridiculous arguments back by little to no facts.
You have no room to demand facts. You ignore when someone puts up a fact that proves you wrong.
I have come to the conclusion you like other progressive believe they are smarter than facts.
It is that mentality that is in play in the failed policies of the Obama administration.

quote Originally posted by newf: Wait... that means that you believe all the "data" you copy and paste is meaningless? Although I would venture that most of your data is not from any majority.

Uh...yeah. That is, once again, 180 degrees from what I said. If you're going to make posts like pyrthian, then we're done.

It can be proven its been warmer on the planet in the past. They have fossils of palm trees from Canada as just one example. That of course is assuming cavemen didnt imported them for their greenhouses....

quote Originally posted by partfiero: I have read virtually everything you have ever posted and your ridiculous arguments back by little to no facts. You have no room to demand facts. You ignore when someone puts up a fact that proves you wrong. I have come to the conclusion you like other progressive believe they are smarter than facts. It is that mentality that is in play in the failed policies of the Obama administration.

Back up your statements.

I make ridiculous arguements? Show me.

No room to demand facts and ignore when proven wrong? Show me.

quote Originally posted by newf: Always willing to listen,

You've already demonstrated that's not true.
'bear offered up some information and you didn't listen, read, or discuss any of it - you immediately dismissed it.

Remember typing this:

quote Originally posted by newf: Don't bother, like I said before you can copy and paste all the data that supports your theory just as well as I can.

You have decided that you believe anthropogenic global warming is an imminent threat, and you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your predetermined belief.
That's what the global warming community is doing as well, and it's not good science.

What I want to see is something proving the cause-effect connection between CO₂ and temperature, and that CO₂ causes the temperature rise. There's some data that suggest the reverse, that rising global temps cause CO₂ levels to rise. So first you have to establish the connection, then you have to establish which is driving the other. THEN it's a matter of scale - how MUCH impact is the manmade component, if any?

Nobody ever gets that far before saying, "Well, we should just do all this green stuff because it's the right thing to do."

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 10-13-2010).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Uh...yeah. That is, once again, 180 degrees from what I said. If you're going to make posts like pyrthian, then we're done.

You said that "In science, consensus is *meaningless*. Until you, and many others get that, then unproductive fallacies will be perpetuated."

Yet you seem to discount all that science in favour of what you call proof. My problem with that is what makes it proof and the rest meaningless in your mind.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: It can be proven its been warmer on the planet in the past. They have fossils of palm trees from Canada as just one example. That of course is assuming cavemen didnt imported them for their greenhouses....

Newf care to comment on this please I posted something similar twice.
Man made could not have done this.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 10-13-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: You have decided that you believe anthropogenic global warming is an imminent threat, and you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your predetermined belief. That's what the global warming community is doing as well, and it's not good science.

You're telling me what's in my mind? I also typed that if someone posts something new and credible I will look at it with an open mind but I honestly think we can both copy and paste "data" to support what we believe and never convince each other.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong to debate or even to disbelieve Climate Change and it's causes. Differing opinions are perfectly OK, unfortunately subjects like Climate Change are hard to prove either way.

quote Originally posted by newf: Back up your statements. I make ridiculous arguements? Show me. No room to demand facts and ignore when proven wrong? Show me.

I have posted much good information for you to read and you dismiss it. I do not believe you are serious about discussing anything. I don't think I need to re-post dozens of references to satisfy your argument. You just don't seem to want to acknowledge anything but what is in your own head. Go through the Anthropolical Global Warming pages and look at the good info posted there over and over again.

Arn

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 10-13-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: I have posted much good information for you to read and you dismiss it. I do not believe you are serious about discussing anything. I don't think I need to re-post dozens of references to satisfy your argument. You just don't seem to want to acknowledge anything but what is in your own head. Go through the Anthropolical Global Warming pages and look at the good info posted there over and over again. Arn

I could say the same. I can post countless things as well, that's why I am saying lets post things that are new instead of rehashing all the old data.

Are you saying that Climate change being influenced by man has been proven to be wrong?

Yeah too many beliefs not enough facts on the side of "man made" for me. I think most people in the public believe it because its on TV. Now its cool to believe it. They also want to say they are doing their part by driving a 4 cyl car so they can feel better about themselves. IMO

May be a bit tounge in cheek but... is the choice then for folks who believe humans cause global warming, and it will happen.. fry slow and painful, or fry quick? But the frying will happen?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Yeah too many beliefs not enough facts on the side of "man made" for me. I think most people in the public believe it because its on TV. Now its cool to believe it. They also want to say they are doing their part by driving a 4 cyl car so they can feel better about themselves. IMO May be a bit tounge in cheek but... is the choice then for folks who believe humans cause global warming, and it will happen.. fry slow and painful, or fry quick? But the frying will happen?

Hey, I don't blame anyone for questioning and maybe even not believing.

The Climate Change theories I've read say that the temperature change will be a few degrees over the next century not a meteoric rise like some would have others believe.

If man made global warming exist, attempting to fix it will effect everyone's life, the burden of absolute undeniable proof lies on the believers, not the ones who discount it.
And when they are caught in lies trying to prove their theory, it becomes impossible to believe them.
They have no business altering anyone's life without absolute proof.

.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 10-13-2010).]

I find it ironic that Phil Jones, a scientist working for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, i.e. the champions of global warming theory) has admitted that the global climate has not warmed significantly since 1995, and that the trend from 2002 to the present has actually been downward. Here's a link to his interview with BBC News.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

Keep in mind that humans have not stopped, nor significantly curtailed, CO2 emissions during this time period. So some other force (nature?) must be at work. And apparently, that force is powerful enough to overshadow whatever we're causing. Or maybe, the scientists just don't know the whole story yet.

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 10-13-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: I find it ironic that Phil Jones, a scientist working for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, i.e. the champions of global warming theory) has admitted that the global climate has not warmed significantly since 1995, and that the trend from 2002 to the present has actually been downward. Here's a link to his interview with BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm Keep in mind that humans have not stopped, nor significantly curtailed, CO2 emissions during this time period. So some other force (nature?) must be at work. And apparently, that force is powerful enough to overshadow whatever we're causing. Or maybe, the scientists just don't know the whole story yet.

OK you've linked an article now please quote where he says that the earth has cooled and that has led him to believe the theory of Climate Change is false.

The point was not to claim that he somehow "saw the light" and decided to abandon global warming theory. The point was that he admitted there was a trend, even though he tried to explain it away. By the way, that is in questions B and C, near the top of the page.

Newf, the guy who got his hand caught in the cookie jar is unlikely to admit much. If you can read, this is what he said

Question "C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?"

Answer "No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant."

Notice he acknowledges the downward trend but calls it "not statistically significant". So, this is a far cry from "Global Warming" and the whole article is a nice dodge on the fraud. Play down the actual scientific data and ignore the fact that the false data painted an extreme and false picture.

BTW, -0.12C per decade is significant and it is entirely normal

Arn

everyone has already lined up & taken sides on this. now its down to just bashing back-n-forth.
all there is is theories. obviously. NOTHING can be proven. cant even predict weather a week ahead. we got heads in the sand. we got "the sky is falling!". and all sorts in between. history does show that this has happened before, and will likely happen again.
there are vague signs. Canada's glacier park. but - glaciers do retreat. there is fact enough ice in just greenland to raise water levels a dangerous amount - dont remember but I think 20 feet? we actually worked it out right here on PFF, based on greenlands Ice volume & ocean surface area.

man made? hard to say. we've been burning stuff all of our existance. and, the earth certainly spews quantities of crap humans cannot even come close to expelling - but - nowhere near as steadily. flash in pan vs non-stop burn. and, now BOTH are happening.

I myself am confident in this is just plain old earth and its cycles. and, solar cycles. orbit cycles. axis cycles. etc. to try and pin such complex systems on a single item seems wrong. no doubt single items can influance. and combined with the right time in the cycles - things can go badly.

fear not - even worst case global warming models are not so bad. heck - having the middle east uninhabitable - how bad could that be?

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Newf, the guy who got his hand caught in the cookie jar is unlikely to admit much. If you can read, this is what he said Question "C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?" Answer "No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant." Notice he acknowledges the downward trend but calls it "not statistically significant". So, this is a far cry from "Global Warming" and the whole article is a nice dodge on the fraud. Play down the actual scientific data and ignore the fact that the false data painted an extreme and false picture. BTW, -0.12C per decade is significant and it is entirely normal Arn

It's not even a full decade of data however which he seems to be saying isn't a long enough span.

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.


Shall we look at IPCC Chapter 9 and debate?

quote Originally posted by newf: Shall we look at IPCC Chapter 9 and debate?

If it isn't evidence beyond the shadow of doubt, then mankind cannot be convicted, sentenced to a life behind "GREEN" bars.

The problem is a hunch is leading to a government regulating and taxing anything and everything. They have found their golden ticket and they are going to riun with it, notto mention silence any opposition.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: If it isn't evidence beyond the shadow of doubt, then mankind cannot be convicted, sentenced to a life behind "GREEN" bars.

Evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt? Don't like the scientific process much do you?

Were you an O.J. juror?

Been hearing this same crap since I was a kid, and it has yet to come to pass. 1/2 a century.
When there's a glacier covering half of Texas the same folks are going to be screamin "Settled Science--Settled Science--" "I read it on the internet, it has to be true."

quote Originally posted by newf: Evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt? Don't like the scientific process much do you? Were you an O.J. juror?

Well the jury is still out on if there was actually a crime committed, but hey lets convict SOMEONE for the crime that may have never been committed.
This is what is taught in the new detective 101 classes.
Down here the symbol for our justice system is the blindfolded lady with the scales.
For the global warming folks their symbol appears to be a kangaroo.
On the OJ jury question, I plead the fifth..

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 10-13-2010).]

quote Originally posted by newf: I believe that the scientists studying Climate change know and have taken into account the fact that the earths climate did in fact change many times without the influence of man. But from what I can read it seems the current levels of greenhouse gases, in particular c02 levels, are contributing to a change that has not been seen before.

Well, its 65 million years later and I still dont see no new growth palms in Alberta.... Any change that has a real effect on us wont happen till the disappearance of mankind so who cares. ONLY thing that could change it catastophicly AND quickly is something like an asteroid strike. We could lite a match to every manmade flammable fuel on the planet in the next hour and have litterally no effect on the planet. It would be like throwing a shot glass of oil into a forest fire.