Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 'Killer Summer Heat': How Climate Change Is Killing Us

Posted 1 year ago on May 23, 2012, 8:45 p.m. EST by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

  • Common Dreams staff A new report released today from NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) shows how climate change is killing us as heat-related deaths in the U.S. are set to rise to 150,000 by the end of the century due to soaring carbon pollution.

Source: Killer Summer Heat: The Death Toll from Rising Temperatures in America Due to Climate Change, a new report by NRDC “These hotter days have a real human cost,” said Dr. Larry Kalkstein, research professor of geography and regional studies at the University of Miami.

The report, Killer Summer Heat, describes how a 4°F - 11°F expected rise in average temperatures will contribute to an increase in heat-related illnesses such as heat exhaustion, heat stroke, cardiovascular disease, and kidney disease.

“This is a wake-up call. Climate change has a number of real life-and-death consequences. One of which is that as carbon pollution continues to grow, climate change is only going to increase the number of dangerously hot days each summer, leading to a dramatic increase in the number of lives lost,” said Dan Lashof, director of NRDC’s climate and clean air program.

“To prevent the health impacts of climate change from getting even worse, we need to establish a comprehensive program to reduce heat-trapping pollution from all sources, by building on the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposals to limit carbon pollution from new power plants and cars,” said Lashof.


NRDC release: Heat-Related U.S. Deaths Projected to Rise 150,000 by Century's End Due to Climate Change NRDC’s "Killer Summer Heat" Report Estimates Heat Death in Top 40 Cities

WASHINGTON (May 23, 2012) -- More than 150,000 additional Americans could die by the end of this century due to excessive heat caused by climate change, according to a detailed analysis of peer-reviewed scientific data by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The “Killer Summer Heat” report, released today, projects heat-related death toll through the end of the 21st century in the most populated U.S. cities. The three with the highest number of total estimated heat-related deaths through 2099 are: Louisville, KY (19,000 deaths); Detroit (17,900); and Cleveland (16,600), according to the report.

Other cities’ estimated death tolls through the end of the century include: Baltimore (2,900 deaths); Boston (5,700 deaths); Chicago (6,400 deaths); Columbus (6,000 deaths); Denver (3,500 deaths); Los Angeles (1,200 deaths); Minneapolis (7,500 deaths); Philadelphia (700 deaths); Pittsburgh (1,200 deaths); Providence, R.I. (2,000 deaths); St. Louis (5,600 deaths); Washington, D.C. (3,000 deaths). [...]

The kinds of consequences of climate change highlighted in NRDC’s report are already evident:

At least 42 states saw record daytime highs in the summer of 2011 and 49 states saw record high nighttime temperatures, according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

Health impacts spike during excessive heat events. For example, California was hit by deadly heat waves in 2006, causing during a two-week period 655 deaths, 1,620 excess hospitalizations, and more than 16,000 additional emergency room visits occurred, resulting in nearly $5.4 billion in costs. During a record-setting heat wave in 1995, Chicago suffered over 700 additional heat-related deaths. [...]

NRDC based today’s analysis on two peer-reviewed studies co-authored by Kalkstein, one of which was published in the American Meteorological Society’s journal Weather, Climate, and Society, and the other published in Natural Hazards.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/23-7

208 Comments

208 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

Deaths from respiratory illnesses caused by pollution causes tens of thousands of deaths each year in the United States. In other words, every year, exponentially more people are killed by pollution than terrorism has killed in the entire history of our nation ... yet in response to 9/11 we built a giant new agency (Homeland Security, about 200,000 employees), nearly tripled spending on intelligence (we spend more on intelligence than the rest of the world combined), we've been militarizing police forces, we're now preparing to allow drone flights in domestic US airspace (estimates postulate that police department and other agency acquisition of drones could top 30,000 over the next decade), etc. etc. CO2 is killing our atmosphere (the atmosphere our species needs to survive), so suffice it to say, I think it deserves our undivided attention (and I dare say, our priorities are all fucked up).

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17985) 1 year ago

That Carbon Dioxide even tho' it is essential to life via photo-synthesis, is also a 'Greenhouse Gas' is undeniable. The Physics is clear and The Greenhouse Effect is well understood and without it life on this planet would not exist. We owe our previously relatively stable climate to this and the level of CO2 has been pretty stable at ~ 300ppm (0.03%) for a very, very long time (verifiable from ice and lake sediment cores). However, due to emissions that proportion has risen in the last 40 years to ~390ppm (0.039%) which is a 30% increase in CO2 levels.

Further, both water vapour and methane are also greenhouse gases and the level of both will also rise with rising global temperatures. This is termed 'positive feedback'. A Human Influenced and possible 'run away' Greenhouse Effect is empirically, scientifically and mathematically possible, so the question is do we accept or 'believe' that it is happening ?

The atmosphere is but a thin film above us like 'cling-film' on a water melon. It's easy to assume that we can have no effect on the presumed vastness of the atmosphere but this is not true. As the atmosphere warms, the dynamic and apparently chaotic but actually relatively ordered 'Climate System', has 'more latent energy' and will operate at a higher energetic level. Thus, 'The Climate' will be seemingly more chaotic to our perception. We are already witnessing weather records being taken to new levels throughout the world and this matter is not really up for debate - unless there is a truly vast international conspiracy of scientists at all levels !

Globally, as a species we can feel and detect that 'something is changing', that something is different now to how things were however, we may yet choose to behave like the proverbial 'frog in a pan on a stove' &/or as a 'rabbit caught in a bright light' !!

Sadly, I don't really think that we will stop either our behaviour or its results in the short or even medium terms. It's now a question of adaptation, however consider this : That "The International 'Darksider-Sith' Ruling Elites" [translation : 'Parasites' !] actually do NOT mind countless hundreds of millions of the rest of us perishing if it means more for them and Less Of Us !!!

The above is compounded by 'Militant Pro-Industrialism' as well as by Religious Nutters - who IF they have belief in 'Biblical End Times' (ie some Jews, Christians and Muslims !!!) do not think human action can possibly affect The Earth's Climate as only 'God' could do that AND when compounded by the ignorant, those in denial and those who know but just don't give a shit ... well, we have quite a recipe for forthcoming perturbations, to say the least.

There is alas, a rather overwhelming international scientific agreement in the actuality of rising temperatures. Even if the US Govt. wishes not to accept or acknowledge the science of major US scientific institutions, such as The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute ( http://www.whoi.edu/ ) or The Scripps Institute of Oceanography ( http://sio.ucsd.edu/ ) etc., internationally the scientists have known for well over a decade that 'something' is afoot.

'Mother Nature' has locked away VAST amounts of Ancient Carbon in the form of peat, coal, oil and gas. We know that there is a Carbon Cycle just as there is a Water Cycle, but that the time scale of the Carbon Cycle (which includes Geological processes) is much, much longer than in the case of The Water Cycle - simplified here to : evaporation, condensation, precipitation and run-off.

Therefore, how can we as a sentient species, consider that we can bypass the Carbon Cycle and extract huge amounts of carbon based fuels, burn them and almost instantly (in geological time) return this carbon to the atmosphere Without There Being Any Repercussions ?!

What is our individual and collective intuition on this matter ?!!

~*~

ad iudicium ...

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 1 year ago

Thanks, that was very good. When people see first hand the effects of global warming.....that has a real impact. One place that you can do that is Glacier National Park where glaciers have been disappearing at an unprecedented rate.

Living here on the Jersey Shore, it is easy to see that we will be an early victim of global warming, especially south of me where there are many communities that are not much more than a foot, or two over high water. At some point government will be faced with the choice of how much money do you spend to save these communities vs. letting them go into the sea. In any event, you can add this all on to the external price of burning fossil fuels.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17985) 1 year ago

Thanx Odin. Like you say about The Jersey Shore so similarly is said by people living in Bangladesh, The Maldives, Tuvalu & other Pacific Island Peoples. They and The Inuit & Siberian Indigenous Peoples are our 'canaries in the cage' and they have been singing for some time now ! Maybe they ought to take to 'Tweeting' too !! We Can Act - we have done so before (see my reply to BetsyRoss below) !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 1 year ago

We can never give up hope. I'll check the reply out. BR is a handful, eh? :-)

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 1 year ago

Betsy Ross

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17985) 1 year ago

'Tr@shy' : Why have you posted this slanderous link and what bearing does it have on this thread ? Further, ask of yourself Sicamber - The Grail Question, "who do you serve ?"

Let me simplify it Trashy Spam-Bot : Voting Democrap is the only option to some (for reasons of residual hope, deluded loyalty and desperate liberal angst) when faced with the enforced binary faux choice of 'R & D'. For true left, liberal, progressives - voting Demoncrap is like wiping your ass - ie really NOT a subject for polite conversation or even debate - BUT 'wtf' is the option ?!

The Option of course is that before this year is out ; before The Crapitalist Commercial 'Stuff Fest' of Christ-Mash is over - Real Work for a Mass Movement of True 99% Independents &/or a Third (or more) 'Labour Based' Party - needs to institute itself and start The Long March back to love, reason and sanity in The U$A. That is what I believe and that is why I am here, with my tuppence !!

Of course Demoncraps & Repelicunts are two sides of the same crooked coin ... and the sun rises in the east & sets in the west .. tell us something that we don't know Trashy - like you're hanna'bal lecter incarnate &/or that somewhere you have a 'JeRM' of an idea worthy of consideration !!!

verb. sat. sap. ...

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

I like how it's title with the word "Proof" as if saying something is equal to proof of such. You guys are arguing with a kid and this is yet more proof of that. It's like acknowledging a lost dog. Stop feeding the trolls. I have said this time and again while others continue to excuse and rationalize it. The DNFTT policy is standard on every forum because it is proven to work. If you continue to engage him, you are equally guilty for the condition of this forum.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

a democratic vote means we all vote

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (17985) 1 year ago

Just when are you going to start constructing proper sentences ?! ad iudicium ...

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

You're spot on .... nice summation of the facts. I think to some extent we will have to adapt (for instance, some amount of sea level rise appears unavoidable at this point), but unfortunately, we don't know what collection of circumstances can create a very bad cascade of events. If warming disrupts ocean currents, it's possible warming could become freezing (I think Younger Dryas occurred over the short span of ten years, and how we adjust to something like that quickly enough to avoid catastrophic loss of life, is beyond me).

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17985) 1 year ago

Thanx 'fmj', 'nil desperandum' & further to posts above and below, please also find the following :

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle ;

b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere ;

c) The Doc. "Crude" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVIl3CcmgzE [NB : Audio Kicks In At 3:30!],

d) Pick and Choose from 'Pro & Anti' Docs. @ http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/category/environment/ ;

e) For posterity and for the interested :

~*~

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by tomdavid55 (93) 1 year ago

about climate change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R_jT015UdU&feature=youtu.be

See also:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTQ1WOC9RgY

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

"The atmosphere is but a thin film above us like 'cling-film' on a water melon. "

Except that by using the analogy of "cling-film" you give the "alarmist" impression that the atmosphere somehow "locks" in all of our environmental freshness...that's it "traps" everything in side of it.

It does not. The atmosphere is permeable and does actually "vent" out into space. So it's more like gauze than it is like plastic wrap.

AND- if you actually use science and math to do the calculations (instead of relying on computer models that everyone-including scientists all over the world will admit are wrong) we find that "only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. "

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

From the paper I linked to prior- http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf

"The impact of CO2 is non linear in the sense that each added unit contributes LESS than it's predecessor."

"what is known (the actual evidence collected) points to the conclusion that a doubling of CO2 would lead to about a 0.5 C warming or less, and a quadrupling (should it ever occur) to no more than about 1C. Neither would constitute a particular societal challenge....nor....more storminess, greater range of extremes."

(The paper shows that the models predicted a 4C increase from doubling CO2 levels-which is incorrect and have proven to be grossly inflated when compared to OBSERVED temperatures.)

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

When you get sick like the flu or something - Do you bleed yourself or attach leaches? I'm curious as to how backwards you are.

[-] 3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I see you've chosen to attack me personally rather than responding to the information or the actual data in a logical or intelligent manner. Why is that?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I have seen plenty of your comments - and quite frankly? They are really lame. You have a tendency (?) program (?) of poo pooing global warming and of supporting fossil fuel and other status-quo interests.

Sorry just my observation of your work so far. I do believe that I am not alone in this observation. As you are quite obvious.

Don't take my word for it - ask around.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Address the actual science and information presented by one of the world's foremost atmospheric physicists. I agree with everything he says.

There is climate change. The climate changes ALL THE TIME. Man's activity DOES contribute to greenhouse gasses. BUT-NOTHING known that has been taken from the actual, observable evidence suggests that there is ANY reason for ALARM.

That's what you keep missing, ignoring, pretending that I DO NOT say. I can't make it any more obvious-but you'll keep denying that I ever said it.

NOW-Since you think I'm "lame"-please address MIT Professor Richard Lindzen's presentation linked here http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

And get back to me on where he is wrong. Surely if anyone on earth can refute this man's scientific evidence and proof-it's the climate experts who constantly post here that we're all doomed.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (17985) 1 year ago

My "cling film" analogy was meant to be a metaphor for 'Relative Depths / Thickness' NOT to "alarmist ... impressions that the atmosphere somehow "locks" in all of our environmental freshness ... that's it "traps" everything in side of it." That is totally your faux inference !!!

Of course the atmosphere is NOT a 'closed and sealed' system - it is always 'dynamic' and interacts with celestial (eg. Aurora Borealis) and geological (eg Volcanoes) processes, so constructing a straw man misrepresentation is ... well par for the course for 'denialists' !!

One paper (and even several) in the face of massive numbers of peer reviewed papers from scientific institutes et al from all around the world does NOT a thesis make !

verb. sat. sap. ...

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I am going to ASK you to read the speech given by Professor Richard Lindzen (MIT) to the House of Commons on Feb 22, 2012 and then convince all of us that YOU know more than one of the world's most respected atmospheric physicists. Prove HIM wrong for me will you? Are you even brave enough to accept the challenge? Is ANYONE here?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

There are a small percent of climate scientists who question some parts of the climate change theories. But for every one you might find there 10 who disagree! of course the extreme weather is undeniable. the excessive drought, heat deaths, opening of northern sea routes, Are issues we must face without the politics of fossil fuel corps. and finally can't we agree that we MUST stop polluting the air we breath, water we drink, and the land we grow our food? Support OWS. vote out anti alternative energy politicians.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (17985) 1 year ago

Richard Lindzen is a highly intelligent man and quite a star amongst the sceptics. I am NOT going to "convince all" or any, that I know more than this man - but how and why I think is evidenced by my comments and also in my links above and in my references to The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute ( http://www.whoi.edu/ ) or The Scripps Institute of Oceanography ( http://sio.ucsd.edu/ ) and feel free to see what they think on this matter.

We read who we read ; believe how and what we want to believe and impugn who we wish ... it is a question of taste, reason, instinct and intuition. I know the 'UK Daily Torygraph' very well indeed and of course it'll give 'antis' prominence !!!

Remember 'Acid Rain' ? When Canadian and Scandinavian Lakes for example, were proven to be acidified and poisoned by US & UK sulphurous emissions, when power stations were proven to be the cause ... It Was Stopped. Similarly, when CFC's were clearly found to be responsible for Ozone Layer Depletion ... again we - as a species, chose to act !!

The level of 'Jam-Today & To Hell with tomorrow' vested, private and corporate interests in 'The Anti Camp' leads me to be very suspicious of them and I'll leave you to 'fly (&sew!) your flag' now BetsyR !

minima maxima sunt ...

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Do you realize how many "vested private and corporate interests" are PUSHING scientists to declare ALARM??? How on earth can ANYONE in OWS-that wants to get the money corruption OUT of our government so vehemently defend the exact same thing happening to our science???

The EXACT same people-who control our lives through their financial influence on our government, are trying to get the REST of our money by lying to us and manipulating actual DATA so that we will then fund their NEW corporations and systems when and if we succeed in destroying their CURRENT corporations and systems!!!

How blind and naive does one have to be to believe that such evil, rich, powerful people cannot possibly be one step ahead of our awareness? They didn't get where they are today by being STUPID. They base all of their actions on observable HUMAN NATURE and BEHAVIOR.

Use whatever measure of reason, instinct, and intuition that you posses and then READ THE DAMN SPEECH. Actually TRY to understand the logic, reason, and science he presents in it with an open and unbiased mind. (I realize this flies in the face of your preference to read what you want, believe what you want, and impugn who you wish to whether it actually agrees with FACTS or not)

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17985) 1 year ago

What your post 'de facto' suggests is a Truly Vast International Conspiracy of Scientists from various disciplines ... and that is too much for me to compute !

Your assertions above are unevidenced nor corroborated and seem to emanate from fear and anxiety and I have given numerous links and expressed myself to show my thinking and opinion on this matter ... and we can impugn each other 'til sun-up but nothing will be achieved !!

JP Sartre said "Subjectivity Is The Only Truth" and thus the scientifically, evidenced and accepted consensus is the nearest we have to 'Objectivity' and like it or not BR - that position is clear and action on increased C02 levels is thus justified, from the 'Precautionary Principle' in the very least !!!

ipse scientia potestas est ...

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

That's just it-the computer models aren't scientific-they "predict" an outcome based upon the data that is programmed into them. Time and again scientists have proven that what was programmed into them DID NOT INCLUDE or account for, specific elements that 20 years later we can now PROVE also affect warming as much as, and even more so, than CO2 levels.

That people like you REFUSE to accept or include this observed EVIDENCE demonstrates that YOU are irrational, unscientific, and living in "fear and anxiety". It's a known fact that fear and anxiety cause people to ignore important facts and make rash decisions based on emotion. Why do you think all of the AGW arguments are FILLED with statements that feed fear and anxiety?

If you REALLY cared about the environment, about doing what is best for the planet and the people living on it, you'd want every single aspect of the atmosphere investigated and evidenced BEFORE you created policies that affect it. Especially when the scientific community's "consensus" is based on PREDICTIONS produced by FLAWED programming that does NOT MATCH our current evidence.

That you have no problem accepting/believing that a "truly vast international conspiracy of capitalists" or "conservatives" or "corporations" or the "elite" or any OTHER group can exist, but NOT one involving the scientific community is stunning. You have ZERO problem accepting that the vast population of this country has been "brainwashed" into allowing others to "control their money" -and standing up AGAINST it-but completely disdain the idea that the same damn group of people could ALSO be "brainwashed" into allowing THE SAME OTHERS to "control their air/planet" as well!!! Can you really NOT SEE the irony of your own stance? Can you really NOT sympathize with those "protesting" against the plutocracy/oligarchy evolving in the scientific community?

Science today is almost completely driven by MONEY and GOVERNMENT. If those with the MONEY don't want you researching something-you get no funds, and you can't do studies without money. If you can't see or accept that, you are just as blind and hopeless as you say those who oppose OWS are.

"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science." Jules Henri Poincaré

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17985) 1 year ago

The actuality of Rising Global Temperatures is a matter beyond mere 'predictions and models' as it is empirically observable and measurable at The Poles ; The Tibetan Plateau and Himalayas ; The Alps ; The Andes ; Arctic Permafrost/Tundra ; The Sahel & increased global desertification ; Coral Reef Bleaching and 'Die Off' as well as myriad other indicators.

You can choose to call me what you wish (as you do above, lol!) and though you end well, your first four paragraphs are too shrill to engage with and echo Oil Corporation Propaganda / "Talking Points".

Thus, suffice it for me to quote Wm. Blake (from Auguries of Innocence) : "Truth told with bad intent ; beats all the lies you can invent," and to repeat some of my opening comment :

  • 'Mother Nature' has locked away VAST amounts of Ancient Carbon in the form of peat, coal, oil and gas. We know that there is a Carbon Cycle just as there is a Water Cycle, but that the time scale of the Carbon Cycle (which includes Geological processes) is much, much longer than in the case of The Water Cycle - simplified here to : evaporation, condensation, precipitation and run-off.

  • Therefore, how can we as a sentient species, consider that we can bypass the Carbon Cycle and extract huge amounts of carbon based fuels, burn them and almost instantly (in geological time) return this carbon to the atmosphere Without There Being Any Repercussions ? What is our individual and collective intuition on this matter ?!

  • Globally, as a species we can feel and detect that 'something is changing', that something is different now to how things were however, we may yet choose to behave like the proverbial 'frog in a pan on a stove' and/or as a 'rabbit caught in a bright light' !!

  • Sadly, I don't really think that we will stop either our behaviour or its results in the short or even medium terms. It's now a question of adaptation, however consider this : That "The International 'Darksider-Sith' Ruling Elites" [translation : 'Parasites' !] actually do NOT really mind IF countless hundreds of millions of the rest of us perishing as it means More For Them and Less Of Us !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

One more time. The temperatures on this planet have been RISING and FALLING for billions of years. The empirical, observable, measurable numbers on every respected chart PROVES it and they also establish a clearly demonstrated Temperature Cycle (since you are fond of cycles).

How can you, as part of a sentient species continue to ignore the fact that ALL of those charts and ALL of those measurements PROVE that rises in CO2 levels ALWAYS FOLLOW rises in temperature-NOT the other way around. This current time period we live in follows an ICE AGE for crying out loud-of COURSE the temperatures are rising-just like the charts indicate that they have after every other ice age! And carbon levels will rise until the whole cycle starts to cool and the earth begins to lock up all that carbon in ice again.

*Mother Nature has repeatedly and measurably dumped VAST amounts of carbon into the atmosphere-the melt off of the Ice Ages and volcanoes for example. In fact, there are still hundreds of active, deep sea volcanoes spewing TONS of carbon into the ocean 24/7.

*OF COURSE human activity affects the Carbon Cycle. We are part of it ourselves. The "consensus" is that we affect the CO2 levels. No argument with you there. The QUESTION our intuition SHOULD drive us to ask, is HOW MUCH IMPACT does our contribution have on it. THAT is the debate going on at the moment in science.

Scientists are determining HOW MUCH of the current rise in CO2 levels can be attributed to human activity. According to the math and scientific measurements used on the geocraft link I posted, "total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect." Or put another way-SOMETHING OTHER THAN HUMAN ACTIVITY is responsible for 99.72% of the greenhouse effect.

(Does it bother you that until recently, water vapor-the largest contributor to greenhouse gas was almost always left off the charts and comparisons? Does it bother you to know that for whatever reason it was done, it has manipulated the public's comprehension of the facts? It bothers the crap out of me.)

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17985) 1 year ago

Both your Geocraft.com links are over seven years old and are very concerned with deconstructing US Govt. statistics that are well over Ten Years Old, eg : "The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor) U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000)". Further, "Geocraft" simply "asserts" much and what references there are are again at least 10 years old. These links clearly wouldn't pass muster for any popular scientific publication - ('New Scientist', 'Nat. Geo.' etc.) or Scientific Journal ('Nature' etc.) & frankly I question their neutrality and bona fides.

Re. Richard Lindzen, well the man is certainly idiosyncratic, interesting and iconoclastic and he is very much 'primus inter pares' amongst sceptics. He is a very necessary counter foil for 'orthodoxy' and serves an important function - BUT that doesn't make him right !!

From another source : "According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article, "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001, and offered more support in a 2009 paper, but today "most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited." Lindzen admitted "some stupid mistakes" in the 2009 paper, which he called "just embarrassing".

And "Despite the centuries-long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans, Lindzen's attitude toward irreversible damage to the planet is sanguine : “If I’m right, we’ll have saved money” Dr. Lindzen told the Times. “If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something.”

Can we as a species afford to be so sanguine ?! And finally, once again : How can we as a sentient species, consider that we can bypass the Carbon Cycle and extract huge amounts of carbon based fuels, burn them and almost instantly (in geological time) return this carbon to the atmosphere Without There Being Any Repercussions ?!! What is our individual and collective intuition on this matter ?!!!

Positive Feedback Loops within the 'Climate System' ie Deep Sea Methane Hydrates becoming unstable ; the release of greenhouse gasses by thawing out bogs in Arctic Tundra ; the effects of denuding forest cover 'et al'. are also possibly very significant as of course, is water vapour - but can we wait to become 100% sure of every bit of the science ? Or do we eventually have to act globally, like we did with Sulphur Emissions and CFCs - and go with The Probabilities ?

omnia causa fiunt ...

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Talking with Tokyo Rose/Berlin Betty?

Vy prolong zies fight. yust give up go home to your loved ones. Zer es nien need vor shtruggle....your luft vones miz you zo much.

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

So, you have no problem trusting and believing what Chris Bretherton wrote in the NYT article you quoted. Why? Because he was "saying something you wanted to hear/believe?"

http://junkscience.com/2012/05/02/the-cloudiness-of-chris-brethertons-intellectual-honesty/

Seems that the article writer is the same Chris Bretherton who "pitched the National Science Foundation to form a Climate Process Team (CPT) to research clouds/climate, even highlighting the great uncertainty in cloud understanding"??? The same CPT that HAS been funded out of the tax payer pockets "so far to the tune of about $390 million — though its not clear how much of this Bretherton received."??

"So Chris, is it “intellectually honest” to sell cloud uncertainties and unknowns to the National Science Foundation and then attack another researcher for doing un-taxpayer funded work on the same issue?"

"And since you already seem to “know” that increasing carbon dioxide levels will lead to positive or “bad” cloud feedback only, should you and the other CPT profiteers return your grants to taxpayers?"

If the best "refutation" you can come up with is a hit piece written by someone who should be granted even less credibility than Dr. Lindzen you're going to make my case for me.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17985) 1 year ago

The truth is we are talking to, through, past & at - each other here. I have through my comments and links on this thread, laid out and explained my opinions on the matter of Climate Change here.

I don't get what "case" you are making but Richard Lindzen seems to be at the heart of it. For example you cherry pick my quote from the NYT, whilst ignoring the rest of my comment above and its gist.

It is up to any readers to judge now as I'm ending 'this heat' and though I'm not asking that you see the light ... I am suggesting that you step out of your own shadow, with any comment in response.

e tenebris, lux ...

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

There is some scientific consensus on the appropriate action necessary to address AGW:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Exactly. Thank you.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It will get real ugly real fast when chain reaction kicks in.

Can you say synergy?

syn·er·gy    [sin-er-jee] Show IPA noun, plural syn·er·gies.

1. the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements, contributions, etc.; synergism.

We truly have not a moment to lose in making necessary healthy profitable clean change.

Green Tech.

This is where we should be going: Green Energy we have the technology we just need to use it. This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/

http://ecat.com/

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600

UNITE IN COMMON CAUSE.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/get-active-be-proactive-unite-in-common-cause/

[-] 1 points by Shule (1559) 1 year ago

Single number one killer and destroyer of property, greater than all other forms of death and destruction, is caused by cigarettes..........

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

True, but prohibitions are always messy.

[-] 3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

This is a fabulous paper too-if you want facts and actual scientific response.

http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf

[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 1 year ago

Key factor from 1972: the World3 eco model from MIT.

We are doing Wile E. Coyote -- running off the cliff while screaming "GROWTH !!!"

Also...

How's about attacking Romney ???? There's plenty of reason to do it.

Also... wtf that corporate media are hiding the connection between Chappaquiddick and Romney in France ?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/mary-jo-kopechne-and-leola-anderson-rest-in-peace

[-] 1 points by tomdavid55 (93) 1 year ago

about climate change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R_jT015UdU&feature=youtu.be

See also:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTQ1WOC9RgY

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

clipboard wanderers remember sun screens and hats

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 1 year ago

If we care about the health of our children, and grandchildren....we must start the process NOW of becoming far less reliant on fossil fuels. it is that simple.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Thank you for this important post, I understand the problem is also bad in Europe, this sort of coverage can only help to bring pressure.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1559) 1 year ago

I wonder if this includes death by affixation from smoke made by bog fires?

[-] 1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 1 year ago

If only we had cap and trade! If only our elite were free to be granted carbon credits from their friends in government to sell them to big corporations and make cool millions it would solve all our carbon problems! I'm so sad, cap and trade now!!

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5689) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Correct, cap and trade is just the latest wealth-redistribution scheme designed to make people like Gore millions, while sucking still more money out of the consumer's pockets after prices skyrocket. It will do absolutely nothing to actually curb emissions, of course.

I'm assuming that was sarcasm.

[-] 1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 1 year ago

Indeed.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

If people like 'Renneye' can claim to not see the effects of global warming, and the trashing of our world by the parasitic capitalism that infects us,. then perhaps they are just not aware at all. Can people really go through life thinking that everything they see as a threat to their continued exploitation of other people and the world we all share, is some conspiracy of the royals ? The pathetic lack of reasoning ability is a sure sign of a broken culture,. and it was broken by force and for a reason,. so the 1% can manipulate and control the dim-witted like 'Renneye' who do not see that the 'conspiracy' they maintain is more reasonable than reality, was made up just for them. keep supporting the koch-suckers,. as you seem to like their propaganda 'Renneye', just realize that you are working for the oil tycoons and your very oppressors.

[-] 2 points by Renneye (3166) 1 year ago

Your interpretation of my reasoning is w-a-a-a-y off. I'm not saying that global warming is not happening. I come from a very naturopathic life, I have no desire to see the oil industry or any other environmentally unsafe industry thrive.

What I am saying is, look at the method 'they' are using to get us to accept their reasoning for Carbon Taxing and land grabs. It is biased to say the very least.

Yes, the "major" scientific organizations are saying global warming is going to be catastrophic if we don't do something. Well, the major scientific organizations are funded by the foundations of the .01%. On the other hand, most of the scientists that don't have the view that global warming is going to be catastrophic are independent or belong to smaller entities that aren't funded by the globalists. This isn't a giant red flag for you? It screams TAINTED. Put that together with the very credible scientists from the 'major' institutions that are letting us know (whistleblowing) that the information is being MANIPULATED. Why would untainted information from credible scientists, and whistleblowers who have everything to lose by going public be ignored? When things don't make sense, I start to question WHY.

When science is not controlled by the .01% global elite who have vested interests in the outcome of that information, THEN I will trust them. Science, like government, should be in the hands of the people. How scientific institutions should receive their funding from the people would be connected to whatever monetary and tax system we set up 'as a people'. I don't claim to have the answer to that yet. I do know that science should be for the benefit of 'all' people, not just for the benefit of the elite who stand to make billions of dollars in revenue made from stripping the world's citizens of the last of their hard earned money, land, and resources through carbon taxing. Which, by the way, is well under way...and...the globalists sure are quick to take from the little guy, yet the industries that are monopolized by them are getting a free pass. Why????? If the world is in such an abominable condition, WHY are there ANY industries, especially those that contribute to the worst of the problem, immune from curtailing their activities?? WHY are all of us expected to sacrifice, yet 'they' benefit monetarily AND don't have to follow the rules they have set out for us? Does global warming have a preference? Does it not do catastrophic damage if the source of the environmental damage is from the elites? That doesn't make sense. I suggest to you, that is because the information is fudged !!

WHY, if the oil industry is so dangerous to this planet, do 'they' make sure that alternative energies are held back? WHY have the people working with Thorium been kiboshed? Since late 2010, at least 10 Thorium websites have disappeared....just disappeared. WHY?

'They' put on a good show of saying they want alternative energies. There is plenty of evidence that things like solar, wind, thorium, etc., are great alternatives, yet much is being done to hurt the growth of those industries. WHY? If the planet is in peril, why are these things not being fast tracked and made as inexpensive as possible to get the stuff out there for us to use, at least in the interim, while other alternatives can be investigated.

I read an article yesterday about the new GERMAN VW Passat that gets 85 mpg, yet the US will not allow them to export here. Geee….I wonder WHY? WHY, if the planet is in dire condition, given that the technology is AVAILABLE, is it not put in every vehicle on the road? I mean...we're doomed, right? That engine should be mandatory ...don't you think?

If there needs to be steps taken to fix the horrendous practices that have contributed to global warming and indeed global warming IS the unhappy ending that the globalists are beating into our brains (with FEAR I might ad), then NO government or globalist elite should stand to gain monetarily.

I would love to see our planet get back to a life more aligned with the indigenous philosophy of "do no harm". I believe we need drastic changes in our mindset of priorities that is far removed from the consumerism that North America is plagued with right now.

If we do not insist on unbiased scientific information now, we will see the impact very soon. We will be screaming foul, when you are denied a physicians help because you drive your car too many kilometres to work and are using too much of a 'carbon footprint' in your life. Or if you refuse a certain meter in your home (that you have pay for) so they can gouge you for a carbon tax because you used too much of one thing or another. Its coming. Don't think for a minute that its not. And, of course they won't let you do things like collect rain water on your own property or grow your own vegetables to help keep your usage and carbon footprint low. WHY? That doesn't make sense.

The globalists are now publicly admitting they want a one world government. To do this means they will be in charge of EVERYTHING, including science and education, which the elite whistleblowers have attested to the elites saying they have claimed dominion over, as being the main tools of manipulation over the masses.

As far as the oligarchs and the monarchs. You are blindly naive if you think they are some benign group with no influence. You seriously need to research, even just a little bit, to see that there is precious little they don't have their greedy hands on. Start with BP oil.

[-] 2 points by Renneye (3166) 1 year ago

Solar panels in Germany produce more than 20.000 megawatt of e-power on Friday. The equivalant of 20 nuclear power plants.

Why is this not a part of the solution in North America?

there is a translate button at the top of the article....

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/sommerliches-wetter-solaranlagen-liefern-rekordmengen-an-strom-11764781.html

[-] 2 points by Renneye (3166) 1 year ago

See! Here's another thing that doesn't make sense....and you gotta wonder...if the planet is doomed, WHY would they allow THIS to happen? Our oceans are dying because they are too acidic, yet they allow this? It doesn't make sense....

http://foodfreedomgroup.com/2012/05/26/canada-dismantles-its-entire-ocean-contaminants-program/#more-21664

"Ross told EHN that his main concern is the “wholesale axing of pollution research” that will leave Canada, and much of the world, without the scientific knowledge to protect whales, seals, fish and other marine life — as well as the indigenous peoples who rely on them for their traditional foods. Many scientists say the purpose of the move by the Canadian government is not just cost-cutting but to eliminate environmental rules and protect the oil and gas industry."

Let me reiterate that I am not disagreeing that global warming exists. Lets all do our part. Lets get the alternative energies we have rolling, so the oil industry doesn't take us to destruction beyond the point of no-return. But as far as listening to the hypocritical government about global warming, I think not. THEIR actions and THEIR response to global warming is counter-intuitive to what they preach about the doomed planet scenario. If the planet goes, the government and elites go too. So, if their doom report is true, they would be doing everything in their power to stop the destruction. Vehicles would have to stop driving, airplanes would have to stop flying, etc, etc., no matter what the cost if our very survivial were at stake. No, its seems to me that "global warming" is BIG business, with BIG money for the .01% globalists.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

I do not know what you will be doing in eighty eight years. I doubt that most of us will be here.How is the twenty five year forcast shaping up?

[-] 1 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

How did you figure eighty eight years?

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

End of this century is eighty eight .Article says 150 k buy end of century.So it is going up .I wonder what it was before central air.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

According to the six studies mentioned in this article, the actual, observable, scientific EVIDENCE shows that CO2 increase actually LAGS temperature increases by an average of 800 years, it does not precede it. The EVIDENCE (as opposed to popular sentiment) demonstrates that increases in CO2 levels CANNOT cause global temperatures to rise because the increase in temperatures happens FIRST.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php

Here's a great website that will help you understand the atmosphere and greenhouse gases etc a little better.

http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2117056

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Could global warming actually be a good thing? (Nice weather, longer growing seasons, CO2 plant food, and many more people die each year from lack of heat than because of it).

Nice weather saves lives:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11820511

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

No, it can't. The problem isn't only ice melt in our polar regions, recent research has discovered that our ground water is also contributing to rising sea levels ... so we have a very big problem on our hands. Moreover, warmer doesn't mean warmer everywhere. Global warming will disrupt weather patterns everywhere (but in an uneven way). It's possible we could see weather patterns in the mid west (where our corn and grains are grown) change radically (potentially impairing our ability to grow food). Maybe the east gets cooler, the south warmer, the desert even more arid and lifeless, our trees and plants could suffer from over exposure to the sun, etc. etc.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5689) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Not to mention that huge time-bomb just waiting for an increase in annual temperatures: methane gas locked up in the permafrost and under the seabeds. It's already being released in small quantities due to recent temp increases. This could potentially be the real killer.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5689) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Thanks for the links. Hey, that reminds me. I gotta plug my speakers back in. ;-)

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

Right, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas (so we could be setting ourselves up for a very bad, and uncontrollable, sequence of events).

[-] 1 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

If warming slows down or stops the driving force of the Atlantic oceanic flows such as the Gulf Stream that warms northern Europe, we can have major disruption of life-as-usual to large population areas there. London might become enmeshed in a Small Ice Age and Ireland might have their New Famine.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

What is the probability that we will have catastrophic (tens of thousands of deaths) consequences from AGW and what is the likelihood that we can stop it ?

Is it cheaper and more effective to adapt (as we have in the past) than to spend money and research time on harvesting energy from pond scum and adding ethanol to our gas?

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

You say that based on what scientific education (and no, right wing gibberish on Fox News and the internet, is NOT education, it's the opposite, misinformation).

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The UN estimates that it will cost $ 20 Trillion over the next 20 years to curb global warming.

If we spend that money how much will that lower the expected temp rise by 2100?

http://csis.org/blog/un-secretary-general-warns-global-warming-may-cost-20-trillion

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

We could build a completely new energy system in the United States, for probably under $2 trillion. I would think that if we decided to do this, we'd want to do it as part of a cohesive strategy. Rather than a patchwork of different things that don't really work together all that well, this may be one of the "few" things where some semblance of central planning may be the most efficient approach.

I mean, how much have we spent on wars that probably would not have happened but for our reliance on oil? How much more will we spend in the future? It's not only costs directly linked to these wars, but it's decades of spending on things like veterans with traumatic brain injuries, it's maintaining a network of something like 1,000 overseas military bases, an exceedingly draconian homeland security infrastructure, etc. These things also cost money (and btw, each one of these things is managed using central planning), so if you want to look at this from a strictly economic perspective, what are the opportunity costs?

This is not the type of question where rational human beings should entrench themselves in dogmatic political philosophy. This is the sort of thing that calls for at least a little bit of utilitarianism.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Opportunity cost is frequently overlooked.

What is the opportunity cost of diverting $ 10 trillion to delaying the eventual temp rise in 100 years by six months (according to IPCC estimates)? How can we justify spending that money. What could we be doing with that money and technical human resource?

Good perspective on this subject:

http://www.lomborg.com/cool_it

Also, there are cheaper alternatives to CO2 reduction that are actually much more effective:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4290084

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

I mean, it's impossible to say what a CO2 reduction plan will cost, without first specifying what we're talking about. Electrical plants occasionally need to be replaced. When replacing these plants, the cost of CO2 reduction would not be the cost of the entire new plant, but rather the cost difference between a conventional plant and a plant that doesn't emit CO2. Likewise, cars need to be replaced every so often, and so again, it's the cost difference that's relevant.

I suspect numbers like $10 or 20 trillion are grossly inflated (and for obvious reasons). A top of the line, modernized electrical grid, built to accommodate solar and wind, would cost max $700 billion. If, for example, municipalities decided to build gasification and fermentation facilities to reduce their waste to syngas, then into alcohol fuels, we wouldn't just look at the cost of building the facility. What about the costs of burying that waste in landfills? In theory, municipal garbage could become a profit center (rather than a drain on public treasuries).

There's shit we could do, like seeding a plankton bloom, which could (in theory) sequester some CO2 (and we may need to do something like that ... in addition to reducing our CO2 output, but in all likelihood, this could not be a permanent solution).

[-] 1 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

The U.S. government (headed and led day-to-day by Obama) neither had the vision nor the courage to pursue a national sustainability initiative with the vast amount of stimulus money spent. There were other countries where methane from wastes were captured and used for bootstrapping under-developed communities. In the U.S., we get to see trillions of dollars added to our national debt and financial-world culprits bailed out (and most still stay scot free -- a defilement of Capitalism and a national disgrace with global implications). Different ways of looking at and treating "wastes" can really help. By the way, in our approximately closed biosphere, sustainability means true recycling of almost everything. Yes, we will devour our own "wastes" indirectly. The yuck-factor has more to do with our own mindsets than with the actual facts. In the olden days, there were people washing their baby diapers upstream while downstream people scooped up the water to cook their meals. It was acceptable as long as no one ventured far from their own village. Does this not sound eerie?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Have you looked at global dimming? This would retain the benefits of extra CO2 (greener planet, super fertilizer, longer growing seasons) but stabilize the temp. Why not engineer our way out of the problem?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4290084

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

Global dimming implies less sunlight, not exactly conducive to the well being of plant life?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If we do everything that you propose above how much will it lower global temp in 100 years?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

It's funny (just as an observation, not necessarily aimed at you personally). Conservatives are willing to believe all sorts of bizarre myths on zero evidence. Whether it's a virtually mythological view of American history, to their religiosity, in many cases conservatives are perfectly willing to suspend critical thinking to uphold the ideas they favor.

However, when it's not convenient for conservatives, as in global warming, then they make absurd demands for evidence. Your question here is an example of this. We might be able to approximate that temperatures will be 2 degrees Celsius lower, or 5 degrees lower (if we do most of the things I suggest above), but our atmosphere is a chaotic system, and while we do understand that CO2 will raise temperatures (and we have a sufficient understanding of the likely consequences), and there is no magical mitigating factor in nature that will come to our rescue, the sort of precise long range predictions you're demanding, quite frankly suggests a lack of understanding of even the most basic scientific facts concerning weather patterns and our atmosphere.

I mean, if you don't even know weather is a chaotic system, and have at least some understanding of what chaos theory is, then what do you know about weather?

[-] -1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 1 year ago

That's true about conservatives, I heard one come on here and claim that the stimulus was going to improve the economy, with no evidence whatsoever, and four years of observation to the contrary.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The answer is six months. If we do everything that the ipcc recommends to curb CO2 emissions the ipcc itself predicts that it will delay the 100 year temp rise by six months. Is that worth spending $10 trillion? Six months?

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

Whatever. We should agree that stopping pollution is critical for our survival. Recycle everything in the landfills. Utilize all waste for fertilizer, Invest in green jobs. Lets not get bogged down in details like cost. Lets agree not to spend 10 trillion dollars. Ok? You happy? Oh and Support OWS Vote out pro big oil/coal politicians

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Hey - were you aware that in some places they actually harvest methane from land fills. Cool - Hey? There is even a power plant that was just activated in orange county Cali that can run on sewer gas or land fill methane ( pretty much the same thing just different sources ). Anyway as a by product besides generating electricity - this power plant produces Hydorgen. Another power source - Heh - imagine that.

Green tech it is like something straight out of science fiction.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

I am reading science/green tech all the time. I sign petitions constantly. I engage here and in person often. It is the only way that change can come. It is slow but inevitable. We are on the right side. And one day we will be vindicated.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You want me to shoot you those links? Pretty cool stuff. This is the saving of Humanity and the world if we can get people educated and on board.

[+] -5 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

We hope you will be with us to remeber that day, VQkag. Take your meds:

"No meds. Just high on the truth. You have obfuscated much of what I've posted. I don't have to "know" everything. I like not knowing. I like not caring about some things. I don't mind contradicting some statements."

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-reality-of-power-and-the-necessity-of-idealism/#comment-746558

Thanks for admitting what we all knew, VQkag. Time to go back to your room now...

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

Without a doubt. A lost opportunity that one day will be widespread. We have immense piles of garbage that we will one use as you have describe and in untold ways. We just have to get beyond the nearsighted view that prevents any progress on alternative energy.

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I have links to this technology on my post - Get active Be proactive Unite in common cause.

I bring the links out now and then to try to get them into social awareness.

This is some of the technology that is available to implement right now as we replace decommissioned Coal fired power plants.

I send off a letter to the EPA every now and then and to Government as well. State and Federal.

This is a favored issue that I push.

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

Definately, I will enjoy them greatly.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Well then - in that case I hope that this is not stale and old news for you:

Green Tech.

This is where we should be going: Green Energy we have the technology we just need to use it. This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/

http://ecat.com/

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

I am not mentally unstable nor have a admitted such a thing. You are just lying which is the same kind of tactics Republicans use. Just like the bully tactics your candidate Romney uses. Are you against equal pay for women also.? are you against the violence against women act? Just curious? Are you gonna say they are "wedge" issues because you can't support them as an anti OWS republican? Stick with the issues like living wage. Support OWS. Vote out anti minimum wage increase politicians

[-] -1 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

The pro-regime moderators of this forum deleted VQkag's earlier admission of mental instability, but not before it was read by dozens (sigh) and copied by us:

"No meds. Just high on the truth. You have obfuscated much of what I've posted. I don't have to "know" everything. I like not knowing. I like not caring about some things. I don't mind contradicting some statements."

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-reality-of-power-and-the-necessity-of-idealism/#comment-746558

Thanks for admitting what we all knew, VQkag. Time to go back to your room now...

[+] -4 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

"No meds. Just high on the truth. You have obfuscated much of what I've posted. I don't have to "know" everything. I like not knowing. I like not caring about some things. I don't mind contradicting some statements."

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-reality-of-power-and-the-necessity-of-idealism/#comment-746558

Thanks for admitting what we all knew, VQkag. Time to go back to your room now...

[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

So. You are also against Green tech? You want us to believe you are an anti gay, anti equal pay, anti living wage, pro big oil, anti green tech socialist who uses bullying tactics, threats and lies. You are unmasked. Time to change your login.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

Your the only republican plant I have outed so effectively.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

Everyone should know. This guy who uses many logins is here just to create dissent. He is a Republican plant!

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I don't know as the repubs would take him.

The greedy corrupt white collar criminal's would as they like taking insane gambles.

[+] -5 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

Everybody's a "Republican Plant" except you, right? Take your meds:

"No meds. Just high on the truth. You have obfuscated much of what I've posted. I don't have to "know" everything. I like not knowing. I like not caring about some things. I don't mind contradicting some statements."

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-reality-of-power-and-the-necessity-of-idealism/#comment-746558

Thanks for admitting what we all knew, VQkag. Time to go back to your room now...

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

LMFAO. You know its true. and you don't scare me. You work for the 1%! Support OWS. Vote out pro 1% po.liticians

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

I should be afraid how I look? Give me a break. I look fine. Do you think things are so just because you utter them.? Why don't you admit you are anti OWS. You can't support any issues we believe in. how about .......... workers over big business? Support OWS. Vote out anti union politicians.

[+] -5 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

Take your meds:

"No meds. Just high on the truth. You have obfuscated much of what I've posted. I don't have to "know" everything. I like not knowing. I like not caring about some things. I don't mind contradicting some statements."

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-reality-of-power-and-the-necessity-of-idealism/#comment-746558

Thanks for admitting what we all knew, VQkag. Time to go back to your room now...

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

Oh c'mon. Your not gonna play dumb now are you.? I mentioned your threats about a dozen times today and just now you are asking? Who do you think your kidding.? You told me you've attacked many people whose opinions you decided were conspiratorial. You told me that Jart was aware and that it was ok with the OWS mods. (Not true) Then you threatened me because I was anti republican. Then your friend April (or is that you also, since you also said you had many many logins as a result of frequent bannings) defend you by saying you were being funny. Remember?

[+] -5 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

Again, poor man, try to understand that both my posts and yours (at least the ones not yet deleted by the forum moderators) are open for all to read. That makes you look silly to those who don't know you're just sick:

"No meds. Just high on the truth. You have obfuscated much of what I've posted. I don't have to "know" everything. I like not knowing. I like not caring about some things. I don't mind contradicting some statements."

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-reality-of-power-and-the-necessity-of-idealism/#comment-746558

Thanks for admitting what we all knew, VQkag. Time to go back to your room now...

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

No hallucinations. And I don't do the name calling thing. Thats for you. I focus on the issues. Like Womens rights! Support OWS. Vote out ant equal pay,anti violence against women act politicians

[+] -4 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

Quoting someone is not name calling, VQkag. And these were your words:

"No meds. Just high on the truth. You have obfuscated much of what I've posted. I don't have to "know" everything. I like not knowing. I like not caring about some things. I don't mind contradicting some statements."

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-reality-of-power-and-the-necessity-of-idealism/#comment-746558

Thanks for admitting what we all knew, VQkag. Time to go back to your room now...

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

So you support fossil fuel pollution creating corps as well? But you aren't a republican? You are a socialist that hates gays? and supports pollution. Please. You are unmasked! Support OWS. Vote out big oil/coal politicians

[+] -5 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

You are seriously hallucinating, VQkag. Please take your meds...

"No meds. Just high on the truth. You have obfuscated much of what I've posted. I don't have to "know" everything. I like not knowing. I like not caring about some things. I don't mind contradicting some statements."

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-reality-of-power-and-the-necessity-of-idealism/#comment-746558

Thanks for admitting what we all knew, VQkag. Time to go back to your room now...

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

Your threats, and name calling go beyond this copied meaningless response you are hung up on now. THE ISSUES. Like money out of politics. Support OWS. Vote out pro citizens united politicians

[+] -5 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

What "threats?" You hallucinate again. Take your meds:

"No meds. Just high on the truth. You have obfuscated much of what I've posted. I don't have to "know" everything. I like not knowing. I like not caring about some things. I don't mind contradicting some statements."

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-reality-of-power-and-the-necessity-of-idealism/#comment-746558

Thanks for admitting what we all knew, VQkag. Time to go back to your room now...

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

That's ridiculous .... where are you getting this stuff from, Exxon Mobil's information site about global warming :)

Curbing CO2 emissions will prevent man made global warming "forever"

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Try the ipcc. Hardly an industry biased group.

There are real engineering solutions that could curb cooling but green groups are dissinterested. That attitude damages their credibility as being serious about the issue.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

Seeding a plankton bloom is probably the best one I've heard, or spraying aerosol into clouds, or covering ice formations with white material (to reflect sunlight), etc. There's also sequestering CO2 (burying it underground) ... but there's risks with each of these potential solutions, and it wouldn't solve the entire problem anyway.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The above solutions would be a lot more effective and cost less than wind and solar projects.

The following solution has the potential to completely offset the increase in temp due to man-made (or other) causes. It takes a fraction of the $ needed for the fixes proposed by ipcc, can be tested empirically on a small scale, has already been demonstrated in nature, and can be quickly reversed if there are unintended consequences:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4290084

[-] -1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 1 year ago

They're disinterested because, why would they want to stop global warming if they can also make money stopping global warming?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Green groups like the Sierra Club, Earth First, Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth, and Peta are not focused on global warming because their primary agenda is getting rid of people. To them people are a disease on the planet that must be eradicated. They should be treated in the same way we treat organizations like the KKK and Aryan Nations.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0220/p01s04-ussc.html

http://remnantculture.com/?p=1027

http://skinnyreporter.com/timetocullhumansoverpopulation.html

[-] -2 points by CarlosFenito (36) 1 year ago

Yay! Then we all get free lollipops and puppies for everyone!

[+] -5 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I am asking the question. Should we not demand facts before spending trillions $?

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Sure sure - I mean WTF are we thinking?

Lets start building seawalls around populated islands and around the coast of every continent to hold back the rising ocean levels. Should be a cheap and easy thing to do - and just think of the employment potential.

The air pollution problem - not a problem - another chance for new industry more jobs - Make and sell filtration breathers.

Heavy metal poisons from burning coal - gee that one is a tuffy. OH I know we can turn that over to medical science to engineer our bodies to thrive on such things.

Whew - problems solved.

Thanks for sounding the voice of reason 1sealyon.

Wonder what the wildlife thinks about all of this?

Hhmmmm.

[-] -3 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Happy to help.

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

Just think about this from the perspective of the United States. There's a number of different ways we could reduce CO2 emissions. We could do what Portugal did. The Portuguese now get about half of their electricity from renewables (and there's no scientific reason why this couldn't be scaled up to fit the needs of the United States). Just by modernizing our electrical grid we would gain much more efficiency (and therefore emit less CO2). There's various interesting alternatives. Gasification could potentially convert our garbage into liquid fuels. Thorium and other new types of nuclear reactors are also very promising. Various other things would help immensely. Making cars more efficient, using better materials, using more efficient light bulbs and appliances, doing a better job of insulating our buildings (and basements).

In other words, there's enough science, and enough things we could now, which would get us very close to where we need to be (frankly, I think if we put our minds to it, there's enough available alternatives to get us all the way home).

Think of all the jobs this would produce? I'm not talking about some political quid pro quo, a little help for my ethanol buddies (Bush) or my solar panel buddies (Obama) ... in most cases these companies aren't worth a shit. If for no other reason, we could have the best solar panel manufacturer on earth, but if we're not using solar panels, then it doesn't matter.

I'm talking about a Manhattan project sort of thing. Let's get the fuck off of fossil fuels, and get the syringe out of our arm. There was a day when Americans thought about big things. That America has been in hiding, but at one time it was there. If we're no longer able to dream big dreams as a society, then it really is over, the fat lady is singing, our best days are behind us.

Don't get me wrong, the guys who are making shit loads of money off of this thing, will give you a thousand good reasons why the problem is too big to solve, or why too much ambition will sink us. Suffice it to say, I'm not persuaded.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5689) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Something else pointed out to me by shadz a while back are commercial developments being built with plenty of high-turnover, i.e. quick-growing, plants for the express purpose of locking up CO2 from car exhaust. Fast-growing plants like hemp (not a decriminalization plug, by the way) are an excellent way of locking up CO2.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

I really would have gone with ocean algae

2/3 of the earth is water covered

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (5689) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

An excellent choice, I hear. Shadz may have mentioned that as well. Being in the Midwest, I don't think of the ocean as much as I probably should. I do think of hemp sometimes, though, in the context of fast-growing plants. ;-)

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

is it me, or was there something there?

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5689) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Whadaya mean?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

should of been down below, but system won't let "reply" open think it is because comment had been deleted, somebody came in and deleted a comment so my reply would go away, ("ForumWars" we should take this to FaceBook make a killing it could be bigger than "MaifiaWars")

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5689) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

If you mean the deleted comment right below between you and Matt, it was nothing. It was a comment by francismjenkins to me saying that planting quick-growing plants wouldn't be enough. I'm not sure why he deleted it, I think it's because he edited and expanded his long comment right above.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

oh, OK I just couldn't find a reply, my mistake, hey did you see the NOVA about how it's the micros that give us like 60% of the O2, 20% from land plants 20 from blue-green algae and these micros do the rest, interesting and scary considering what is happening to the sea temps, hemp provides fuel and is an effective cancer treatment, this is a plug, I have patients that could use the help

[-] 4 points by gnomunny (5689) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

No, I didn't. Micros, as in microorganisms, I presume? Interesting indeed. I need to start watching NOVA again, it's been a few years. With satellite, I tend to overlook the lower channels. And I absolutely agree with hemp. Whether someone smokes or not, a little research would show that hemp could be a major cash crop, like it used to be. And that doesn't even include the environmental aspect we're discussing here.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20502) 1 year ago

This is troll spam.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

is it me, or was there something there?

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5689) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Absolutely. We need to do as many things simultaneously as is economically possible. And get started now.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

2 4 8 16 32 64

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

There are a lot of good reasons for finding alternatives to fossil fuels, but the reduction of CO2 emissions just may not be one of them. The point is that it is morally responsible to spend $ 10 trillion on a folly when 4 million people starve to death every year. We should demand facts before we act.

I agree with Renneye below. Follow the money.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Renneye (3166) 1 year ago

yes, Yes, YES! There is soooooooo much evidence that this is bullshit, being brought in so the elite can control us further with their eco-fascism carbon footprint taxing. Please, at least search this possibility on the net. Many independent scientists that are not 'connected' to government money show evidence that shows very differently from the manipulated bs being sold to us now. Ü

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

Who are these scientists? I mean, most research happens in universities, although government provides important data (governments have things like satellites and a vast network of temperature monitoring devices scattered throughout the world, including our polar regions, so they are an important data source, but the guys digging through layers of ice tend to be university researchers e.g. PhD students, professors, post-doc researchers, etc.).

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Why not require data before we spend money?

The issue is not whether global warming is real, the issue is what do we do about it. To figure this out you have to answer the following questions:

  1. What is the probability that global warming is going to be catastrophic (Tens of thousands of human causalities)? We make decisions based on risk every day. Every time we get into a car for example. Why don’t we demand answers before we start making decisions. Catastrophic global warming in the next 100 years could be about as likely as a major asteroid hit. Last time I checked no one is proposing $10 Trillion expenditure on asteroid prevention.

  2. Could global warming actually be a good thing? (Nice weather, longer growing seasons, CO2 plant food, and many more people die each year from lack of heat than because of it)

  3. If it turns out to be a really bad thing what can be done about it? If we adopt all of the changes recommend by the IPCC they predict a delay in temp rise over the next 100 years by only a few months. So why spend trillions for only a small improvement? Wouldn’t that money be better spent elsewhere (poverty, hunger, clean water, prevent disease, etc.)

  4. This is America. We are the great problem solvers. Why not put the best minds to work on solving the problem instead of saying that we all have to go back to cowering in caves warming our hands over a CFL lamp? (BTW, some already have and for a lot less $ http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4290084 )

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

The bottom line is we must stop polluting the air we breath, the water we drink, and the land we grow our food. Even if you don't believe in climate change you can't think it is ok to continue polluting. Support OWS. Vote out anti alt energy politicians

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If $ 10 trillion were spent on feeding the hungry instead of wasteful AGW abatement no human being in the world would starve for 100 years.

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

Sounds like a fantasy. Stop polluting. Support OWS. Vote out anti cap n trade politicians

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (5689) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Carbon credits are a scam, VQ. Designed, not to curb pollution, but to make a small group of insiders extremely wealthy at our expense.

Stop polluting is a no-brainer, though.

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

Ok. I've heard that too. I think there might be a way to make it work without the corruption. but no prob. Support OWS! vote out anti alt energy politicians!

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the insiders grift the insiders

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5689) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

How very true.

They have no soul.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

seriously ?

cause last I checked humans are all pretty much the same

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5689) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

'They have no soul' may have been a bit harsh.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

everyone has a will

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5689) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I have will. But, I have no will.

Guess the kids will just have to fight over my stuff after I'm gone. ;-)

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Ending hunger in the world is not a fantasy, it should be a moral imperative. Instead we spend billions on mercury filled light bulbs and pat ourselves on the back for being green. How about being human?

[-] 0 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

I believe that I went through that discussion about the mercury in light bulbs with you before but I may be mistaken. The largest amount of mercury emitted into the air comes from the coal-fired power plants producing the electricity to power the light bulbs. Very little if any processing is done to clean all of those hills of coals piled up at a power plant before the coal is burnt. Some scrubbing is done on the exhaust but over the lifetime of a mercury-filled light bulb, the reduction of the need for electricity (and the concomitant reduction of mercury emission) outstrips the mercury put into the light bulb. Complete life-cycle costs and benefits are important for good policy decisions. Do not fall for the trick often used for diverting attention from the real and important issues by focusing on minutiae. To live is to pollute (everyone should accept this fundamental truth) but the degree of pollution IS CONTROLLABLE by all of us so we should do what we could.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I vote for supporting and converting to LED lighting - up to 95% efficient - no mercury. They last longer than Compact fluorescent Lights and save a bundle more on energy use. Continuous process improvement. Going forward to a greener healthier future.

[-] 0 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

LED lighting is superior but the lights are still more expensive than Compact Fluorescent Lights so they may be less affordable for some lower-income people. The catchphrase of "continuous process improvement" is very good so as we make more people healthier and wealthier, the pollution of poverty will be lessened.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Ten years ago how much did a 25" flat screen TV cost - couple thousand yeah? Now you can get a 25" LCD or LED flat screen for a couple hundred. Consumption fuels reductions in cost to manufacture and also fuels improvements as competition enters the market.

[-] 0 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

This is exactly where the wealthier people can be of use -- paying for emerging technologies and helping to drive down prices as fat profits attract competitions. Eventually the luxurious options become more run-of-the-mill and available to more people.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If the whole nation switches to cfls and does all of the other ipcc recommendations how much will the global temp drop over the next 100 years?

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Don't know why don't ya hang around and find out.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The ipcc predicts about six months.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The who (?) are star gazing about what? You mean like Nostradamus?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The ipcc estimates that if we follow all of their recommendations to reduce green house gasses we will delay predicted the temp rise in 100 years by six months. Is that worth $ 10 trillion? Six months?

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I think clean air water and land - our food chain - Yep - Priceless.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

How does CO2 make our air dirty? Without it this would be a lifeless planet. There would be no food chain.

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

The IPCC used computer models which have proven to be flawed. The "predictions" of the computer models no NOT match the data we are now able to collect via satellite in real time.

The climate models predictions were based on our atmosphere experiencing positive feedback (which amplifies the effect of increased CO2). The actual readings collected via satellite show that in reality the feedback is negative, decreasing the effects of added CO2.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

So there is only upside to the added CO2?

[-] 1 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

Frankly, I do not care about how much the global temperature drop over the next 100 years (but LED lighting widely used can be even more desirable [even less mercury] than CFLs). I care about my descendants becoming poisoned and mentally incompetent. I care about their fighting each other for dwindling resources, and some WILL be crippled for life. I care about their groping in the dark, huddling in the coldness, or just starving. Due to positive feedback, applying it in reversed time direction towards myself, I suspect that I will escape the brunt of the problems but not so for our children and grandchildren. Having examined the history of human beings dealing with "tragedy of the commons" problems, I am somewhat pessimistic so the best that I can muster is a good luck and leave behind my good will and best wishes.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - time to stop being selfish and short sighted. Just because we may not be here to live with the worst of the ravages of our current environmental and corporate policies. Our children will and their children and theirs - unless of course they all die off from the repercussions of this current age's abuse of the world.

That is the problem with a lot of thinking and planning - it is all done for TODAY with little regard for tomorrow let alone the distant future. How fucking selfish and irresponsible is that?

We need to change this behavior now! Or the future will be short and ugly for humanity.

[-] 0 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

Also due to exactly the same positive feedback, our actions or inactions today or shortly hereafter though minute can have huge consequences in the farther distant future. Whenever any physical system is close to a phase transition temperature, a little bit of changed forcing can alter the behavior of the system drastically. Playing chickens and edging closer to a transitional discontinuity can produce vastly disparate consequences. The positive side is that very small changes NOW can be extremely significant in the long run. I would rather be safe than be sorry.

[-] 0 points by Renneye (3166) 1 year ago

I think we are in impassioned agreement. In fact your #2 item has already been proven. These are great questions. Questions that the elite global-boobs don't want us to be asking. They stand to make boatloads of money from carbon taxing and land grabs. Carbon Trading companies are already BIG business.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

So why then do we let the Gov push huge expenditures on AGW abatement down our throats?

[-] 0 points by Renneye (3166) 1 year ago

The deck is stacked against us I'm afraid. They're bulldozing carbon taxing through as fast as they can, partially because it will drive up costs of everything from food to transportation, and these .01% own all these big corporations that are going to benefit from that. They get us coming and going. Their greed knows no bounds. I remember reading a report a few months back about a British Carbon Trading company that was funded by the World Bank, that went to Africa and used the environmental police there to kick entire villages off their land under "environmental protection" laws. If I remember correctly, it is the British royals who are behind it for massive land grabs. They burned the villagers out and killed some kids. Now how many levels of corrupt government and global elites had to be involved for something like that to be pulled off?

I've known for quite some time what scum the monarchs are. It boggles my mind when I see droves of people oooing and awing over the royals. It makes me want to wretch. We don't need monarchs any more. Their days were over a millenia ago, and I think they know their days are numbered. They must wonder how it is that we keep letting them stay in their positions while they rape people of their land, money and sometimes families. Truly staggering.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/07/map-of-pain-cre.html

[-] 2 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

Like the speed of light emanating from a moving body, the correctness of a position is INDEPENDENT of the party advocating for it. In history, there were many cases of known evil people taking benevolent positions to benefit themselves by confusing the issues at stake or using them as pretexts for advancing their agenda but that does not change the correctness of the positions.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

You are WRONG about the deck being stacked against us. It is much likelier that the deck is being stacked against the poorer people and future occupants of our Earth. History bore out that wealth could fend off undesirable consequences for a while but not for long if basic living conditions (water availability, changes in growing seasons, environmental toxins, etc.) shifted greatly. I adhere to the utilitarian principle of "greatest good for the greatest number" with a twist though and that is "for the present AND FUTURE generations." I am proud of what my forebears had left me and I want no less than the same pride from my descendants if they ever dig into what had happened at my time and my role.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Good treatment of a better use of our efforts and funds that really puts the focus on the least among us:

http://www.lomborg.com/cool_it

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Interesting perspective.

I am puzzled about why people eagerly accept conspiracy theories about George Soros and the Koch Brothers, but are unwilling to turn a critical and objective eye at subjects like global warming.

The dangers of CO2 may be completely real but like any problem the risk and mitigation cost must be analyzed and acted on relative to other problems and priorities that we face.

[-] 2 points by Renneye (3166) 1 year ago

Why, thank you! You can count on me to usually be the polar opposite of popular consensus. Sometimes it bites, but it beats walking around with my eyes glazed over.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

There is some scientific consensus on the appropriate action necessary to address AGW:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

[-] 2 points by Renneye (3166) 1 year ago

Wow....there's a lot of clout behind the people in that article....and in the MSM no less! Thanks so much for bringing it to my attention. Ű

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Over the years the WSJ has done yeoman's work bringing some reason to the AGW debate.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Agreed.

[-] 0 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

It is because it is a step in the CORRECT direction. We can argue about the tradeoffs of different approaches to mitigate the potential consequences but it has become rather obvious by now that our climate is warming up with some very undesirable consequences. I had figured that I would not be greatly affected due to my age and my being in a society with more power to adapt to a hotter Earth. Yes, I can blast my air conditioner at full power to keep me cool and comfortable while exacerbating the conditions originating from the power plants supplying my electricity. It suits me fine but is that really what we want to leave to our children and grandchildren as our legacy?

[-] 0 points by Renneye (3166) 1 year ago

Hold the phone! The research up to now has been murky at best. You have to ask yourself why that is. Of course, always follow the money...who benefits? Here's another perspective.

How To Tell If an Impact Assessment Is Biased

When reviewing impact assessments, look for bias. Often the authors think only of negative changes. This is not necessarily because of personal agendas (such as to assist animals, clean the air, or reduce the birth rate), but is primarily due to human nature. To guard against having a biased report, one should look for balance. Does the material articulate that things will be different and that there are pluses and minuses? There may well be more of one than another. Sometimes balance is reflected in the amount of text, or graphics made to illustrate impacts and often it is reflected in the number of negative versus positive impacts, the latter often left out completely at the first draft stage. If missing, they tend to be only partially treated thereafter as the authors slowly yield to reviewer comments. Examples of balance:

Discussions of increased summer heat waves and deaths should also include the reductions of winter cold waves and hypothermia deaths. Increased costs of home air conditioning need to be discussed in the same context as reduced heating costs.

Increased mismatches between food availability in ecosystems need to also include reduced energy demands needed to maintain body temperature, such as for marine mammals and the fact that plants and cold-blooded animals usually grow faster when warmer rather than colder. Thus the food of most fish and mammals grows faster when warmer.

Discussions of coral reef bleaching need to include the expansion of coral reef habitats.

Discussions of agriculture and forestry problems such as regional droughts and changing types of plants must include the expansion of production areas, general increased precipitation, and CO2 fertilization.

Discussions of poison ivy becoming more prolific because of wetter environments, warmer temperatures, and CO2 fertilization, should similarly treat agricultural crops and forests.

Discussions of polar bear food contraints must include the impact on the seals and other items they kill.

There is good perspective here.....

http://www.climatecooling.org/

[-] 2 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

There are many issues and perhaps almost endless issues to ponder (like "smoking has NOT been demonstrated to cause cancers definitively" so we should obtain more data) but we need to manage our Earth the best that we can because it is our ONLY VIABLE home for any human being for the foreseeable future. Many people just CANNOT wrap their heads around the complexities of the issues involved and that will likely be unchanged for decades. I outvoted myself two against one because I had been both a new and an old sucker so I do not expect any better odds. There are major economies (Japan[#3], Germany[#4], U.S.[#1]) having gone off or going off of nuclear power and to replace that we will most likely be using more fossil fuel. Then there are the most populous countries (China[#1], India[#2]) increasing their national fossil fuel consumptions (China got their U.S. dollars by selling U.S. cheap goods and India got the dollars by getting outsourced IT jobs while the U.S. just keeps on creating more "credit" that can morph into dollars). Add these up and you can see that we will have a much bigger problem down the road. Human beings were not so dominant before but with more than 7,000,000,000 people on Earth already, we are becoming a very significant part of the Earth's ecosystem. Different context requires different response so we should tread lightly and keep our senses keen. It is what true conservatism means, to preserve our blue planet with its greens in the vast blackness.

[-] 0 points by Renneye (3166) 1 year ago

Of course we should be looking after our planet. One would hope that goes without saying by now! What I'm saying is the globalists are using the environmental protection card as a tool for their eco-fascism land grabs and carbon taxing in an extreme way, when there is plenty of evidence from non-government funded scientists that show the opposite of what the government says. The world bank and governments are already making huge amounts of money. All this, when the jury is still out? I smell the stink of massive corruption. Whistleblowers are being silenced. Why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhJAF6nODCU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTQQSqNHhE0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kccYdFc22qk&feature=watch_response

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Are you sure? A fair amount of certainty is in order before spending $ 10 trillion, particularly when the IPCC estimates that even if we spend the $ 10 trillion we will only delay the 100 year temp rise by six months. Seems like folly.

Who stands to profit from all of this?

[-] 0 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

The important question is NOT who stands to profit. The important question is what the best course of action is, while cognizant of and taking into account all of the uncertainties. What we should aim for is a safe enough margin of error because we have NOWHERE to escape anytime soon (all those who talk of space being an escape route are either ignorant of the costs and efforts involved or delusional). Besides, we have already had a very bloody mess for many decades now because of our dependency on oil. Oil will not run out anytime soon but the various costs WILL pile up rapidly. Turning the world more sustainable will alleviate the pressure for extreme resource exploitations and conflicts. There will also accrue planetary benefits to all, whether they know why or not.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Ageeed. The important thing is to choose the correct course of action . Energy is the most abundant thing in the universe, why is there such a focus on conserving it? Do we recommend a diet for people without food? Why not focus on the supply side? The supply must be cheap and available now with medium and long term alternatives.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

The discrepancy between scientific and colloquial terminologies for "energy" and "conservation" creates much confusion in part of the populace not well-versed in science. In science, energy is ALWAYS conserved (NO human effort nor anything else was/is/will ever be required to "conserve energy" and in fact it will turn out to be part of the ultimate law of our universe) but Gibbs free energy which is an upper bound on the "energy" of colloquial circles is constantly being dissipated. Part of Gibbs free energy can do work for human ends but the other part and the non-convertible part is turned into heat and usually dissipated into the environment. Things such as oil, natural gas, coal, uranium/plutonium, hydroelectric dams, wind turbines, solar (photovoltaic) panels, etc. can provide or extract Gibbs free energy which is always a relatively small fraction of the energy pumped through the work-extraction systems. The focus to "conserve energy" in colloquial circles is to "reduce the rate of dissipation of Gibbs free energy" in scientific circles. When Gibbs free energy is unavailable, people and things DIE, ergo all of our very bloody messes relating to the control of the sources of Gibbs free energy. The supply side cannot solve the problem alone because there is ALWAYS a much larger fraction of the energy pumped through that turned into HEAT. Look at any power plant, car engine, and human being. You will see that they always need a way during operation to dissipate HEAT: a power plant locating near water to cool it, car engine having radiator and coolant to cool it, and human being radiating bodily warmth and sweating to cool it. Gibbs free energy converted into human-desired work has NEVER been and will NEVER be "cheap" unless political or economic tricks are used for subsidizing the process. There comes our perennial need to "conserve energy" in colloquial circles. It will be the MOST PAINLESS and CHEAPEST way to satisfy human needs and wants as we approach thermodynamic limit with our exponential population growth.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

There are plenty of examples of cheap, and even free energy. Energy from the sun and wind used to dry wet cloths is one example. Electricity from nuclear power generators should be virtually free. Natural gas is very cheap right now.

Expensive sources of energy right now include solar, wind, and biofuels.

Efficiency is only efficient if the cost to achieve the efficiency is less than cost savings. Cfl and led lamps and solar farms are not efficient solutions if the goal is spend less on energy.

[-] 2 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

Drying wet clothes using sun and wind IS an EXCELLENT example for how wise or sometimes poorer people can "conserve energy." There are many other ways to achieve similar ends but they tend to require knowledge, wisdom, creativity, or dire necessity of circumstance, all of which I believe are in short supply in the U.S. but the U.S. MUST become a part of global solutions, in a similar manner as China and India MUST also be. It is ridiculous for the U.S. or the developed world to cut back while China and India more than offset the reduction with their blind push ahead with coal in the last two decades. Nuclear power seems low-cost because we are DEFERRING the cost of safeguarding the nuclear wastes to future generations. We can do it better and more efficiently rather than letting all of these wastes simply accumulate where they are produced and perhaps end up in Fukushima-like spills which threaten to leak an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE more radioactivity than Chernobyl.

Wind has been cheap for many years. Some forms of solar have been viable for some time. Biofuels are feasible but will ALWAYS be inefficient because of the "bio" which means it will first and foremost be rather WET. CFL, LED, and solar farms are presently efficient if you figure in the COMPLETE life-cycle costs. Look at the corporations' lighting systems and you will see. The catch is really the upfront capital costs but that can be overcome by catalytic financing or wider adaptation by consumers to drive down unit costs. U.S. energy initiatives failed to be effective because creating better technologies do NOT make the markets materialize if the demand is NOT there. Wealthy people do NOT have to care and they probably do not (in any case due to their small numbers do NOT matter much) and poorer people are so up-to-their-eyebrows with their gasoline bills, food bills, education bills, tax bills, etc. to have time to figure out their best interests, nor do they have much CAPITAL to make the changes even if they want to.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Thorium breeder reactor. no good for nuclear war but great for power generation and the waste problem.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Excellent suggestion. Attack the problem with elegant engineering solutions. This is the kind of thinking that we need to make improvements. We do however need both short and long term energy solutions.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

There are plenty to choose from - Go Green.

Green Tech.

This is where we should be going: Green Energy we have the technology we just need to use it. This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/

http://ecat.com/

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600

[-] -2 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

You attack and insult EVERYONE demanding to be the center of attention here, troll. But when given the attention you demand, you melt away into other threads to run up the groupthink count that only you and sick people like you care about. I would ask "Why is that?", but that's one question at least we don't have to wait for you to answer.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

What ever. Do you have a God complex or something? Do you feel the need to worship and attack me as you feel I have something that you can not attain?

Seek help. Your reasoning is seriously flawed. Maybe they could check you in somewhere and get you leveled out so that you can begin to make contact with reality.

Talk to your Friends (?) your family. I am sure there must be someone who would help you.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 1 year ago

You continue to suggest that I have some mental problem. Do you also have some problem with people with mental problems? Another ism? another republican trait.

[-] -3 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

VQkag posts:

"You continue to suggest that I have some mental problem. Do you also have some problem with people with mental problems? Another ism? another republican trait."

We remind him one LAST time what he posted earlier (which this forum's moderators in their finite wisdom deleted):

"No meds. Just high on the truth. You have obfuscated much of what I've posted. I don't have to "know" everything. I like not knowing. I like not caring about some things. I don't mind contradicting some statements."

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-reality-of-power-and-the-necessity-of-idealism/#comment-746558

Thanks for admitting what we all knew, VQkag. Time to go back to your room now...

[-] -3 points by 67192206161 (-56) 1 year ago

VQkag may be off his meds, but I suspect DKAtoday is simply a garden variety troll.

Trolls are trolls are trolls.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Knowledge, wisdom, creativity are in short supply in the US? My what metric do you make this claim?

In 75 years present day nuclear waste will be more valuable than gold. We will wish we had more.

20,000 people die worldwide each year mining coal. Over the last ten years 85 people have died in wind turbine accidents.

Number of people that have died in US nuke plants ever: zero.

We have not built a nuke in the US for 35 years. We have an opportunity to leap-frog the rest of the planet with new, safer, and more efficient plants now. The president deserves a lot of praise for getting permits issued for the first 3. With cheap nuke electricity spending billions on mercury filled cfls and expensive LEDs would be unnecessary. BTW, the reason cfls and LEDs are so expensive is that they consume a lot of energy and materials to produce while exposing factory workers and near-by neighborhoods to lethal chemicals.

The rich can afford to wring their hands over imagined environmental bogey-men, the poor just suffer because the rich squander their abundance on green technology and hormone free milk while poor stave and drink contaminated water.

[-] 2 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

Perhaps I should state it better. There IS knowledge, wisdom, and creativity in the U.S. but they are only in a minority of our population and to put it bluntly, the rest of our population simply do not have much clue. The metrics that I used are the ability of the U.S. to steer our country in favorable and desired directions, especially after we have already discovered that we went on the wrong track to a very bad neighborhood. My hope though is that the U.S. had a history of repeatedly rising to the occasions eventually with all its might so when and if that be combined with our right, we would do what is necessary again because our courage will still be with us.

[-] 2 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

Controlling the backend (consumption) has always trumped controlling the frontend (supply) because of the efficiency laws from science. Even nature does it the same way in biology.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

One (of many) modern counter examples to this concept: solar power.

Photo-voltaics are the darling of the green movement. These are a really bad idea. They are only about 20% efficient. The rest is given off in heat actually adding to the global warming problem. The panels displace energy converting vegetation and reflective surfaces like desert sands both of which further add to global warming. But perhaps the most despicable thing about the use of solar power in rich countries is that the production of photo voltaics consumes a lot of energy and materials while exposing factory workers and near-by neighborhoods to lethal chemicals. These plants are conveniently located in poor countries far from the US consumers.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I find little evidence for this assertion. History is replete with examples of humans exploitation of the cheapest energy source available with little regard for conservation.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Who is focusing on conserving what energy?

Fossil fuel perchance?

That would not be focusing on conservation - it would be focusing on ending the use of.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Energy from natural gas in the US is pretty abundant and the price is dropping. Should we end the use of natural gas, it is a fossil fuel ? A 100 year supply has already been discovered.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Here - all you could ever want to know about fracking and then some.

Enjoy: http://nofracking.com/

Actually look at it and try to get an education.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

How many people die each year from lack of clean water and refrigeration?

How many people die each year from water contaminated by fracking fluids?

We should focus our resources and talent on problems in order of importance. Many more people (particularly the poor) suffer and die due to lack of affordable and abundant energy than from fracking fluids.

The rich can afford to wring their hands over imagined environmental bogey-men, the poor just suffer because the rich squander their abundance on green technology and hormone free milk while poor stave and drink contaminated water.

http://practicalaction.org/life-without-energy-2

http://water.org/water-crisis/water-facts/water/

http://firstaid.about.com/od/infections/qt/06_salmonella.htm

[-] 3 points by grapes (2660) 1 year ago

The issue with fracking is the proverbial hammer in the hands of industries which see every problem to be a nail. There is a huge difference between fracking in impermeable shale from fracking in porous rocks near or in aquifers or reservoirs supplying water for by and large poorer people (the wealthier people can afford to buy their Evian and Poland Spring). If we ruin them, we may end up spending much more for drinking water (like Mexico), not just for one generation but for who knows how long. It is much easier to prevent pollution than it is to clean it up. Of course, the remedy to ANY pollution problem is to keep our mouths shut as all "good and smart" corporations and governments do and let nature dilute it over time (i.e., sweep it all under the rug behind mom's back and tell her that our room is CLEAN).

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Shale fracking began in the US over 20 years ago. Of all the fracking sites in the US where people have been sickened by contaminated water which do you believe is the worst?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - there is another issue - regulation - excuse me - I mean the non-regulation of fossil fuel speculation. Yep that kind of thing provides us ( the public ) with guaranteed high prices no matter the condition of supply and demand - shortages or gluts. We all get raped.

All the more reason to end the dependency on fossil fuel. End the captive market. Introduce competition. And reduce pollution as we move forward to independence.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I agree with you about the speculation issue, however the free market can also work to lower prices. The use of Gov regulation to fix the cost of goods has a checkered history. Generally the Gov is out of their depth when it comes to meddling in the economy. The Gov is really unable to compete. How can a few dozen guys in Washington compete with millions of traders all perusing self interest? They can't compete and it is dangerous to try. They typically just screw things up.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

What is a greater risk to human health lack of low cost fuel and electricity for warmth, refrigeration, and clean water or the exposure to fracking fluids? Should we not answer questions like this before we act?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OMG - you are determinedly blind to already proven facts. You should get a place in Egypt near the Nile where you can live happy in denial as long as your AC keeps working.

[-] -2 points by chile73 (-88) 1 year ago

cool it. you are overreacting like a paranoid moron.