tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53246864840716464.post208723537386287069..comments2024-02-29T00:46:38.800-08:00Comments on Washingtons Blog: Common Ground On ClimateUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53246864840716464.post-76175965695130335902011-07-18T18:22:33.148-07:002011-07-18T18:22:33.148-07:00Thanks tor the valuable info.
Cap and trade is a ...Thanks tor the valuable info.<br /><br />Cap and trade is a scam and if it became the chief method for reducing effluents it would make "the debates over"; Al Gore the worlds first carbon billionaire. ... Never let a good crisis go to waste. Or in this case, manufacture the evidence to allow Global Governance and increased fleecing of the commoners. <br /><br />See: Global Warming, Climate Change Or Something Else?<br /><br />http://notionalvalue.blogspot.com/2010/01/global-warming-climate-change-or.html<br /><br />And: One Year Ago we asked: When it comes to global warming, where’s the truth? <br /><br />http://notionalvalue.blogspot.com/2011/01/one-year-ago-we-asked-when-it-comes-to.htmlPitchmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04604850281908229898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53246864840716464.post-35317545667828831282011-06-20T08:05:44.564-07:002011-06-20T08:05:44.564-07:00Common Ground Number Seven ~ Reduce or Eliminate t...Common Ground Number Seven ~ Reduce or Eliminate the hot air coming from one former US Senator and Vice President!<br /><br />Let's not buy any more of this bullshit from Mr. Al "I invented the Internet" Gore and his carbon trading Ponzi Scheme.<br /><br />I mean the guy lives in a mansion that's 100,000 square foot! Talk about an opportunist and hypocrite of the nth degree..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53246864840716464.post-64734193947502335372011-06-20T02:03:28.033-07:002011-06-20T02:03:28.033-07:00http://www.benzinga.com/press-releases/11/06/p1181...http://www.benzinga.com/press-releases/11/06/p1181581/hundreds-of-atomic-suicide-bombs-could-be-triggered-by-solar-flares-sa<br /><br />"hundreds of nuclear power plants on Earth, which are now at increased risk from severe solar flare activity in 2012, are effectively huge, atomic "suicide bombs" against which humanity has absolutely no protection."<br /><br />""The unavoidable fact is that if we wish to survive we must abandon nuclear power, along with the tradition of putting the pursuit dollars above the concern for all life on the planet. Meier proposed that we rapidly develop deep geothermal energy as a certain way to meet 100% of our energy needs."Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12578947287312584266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53246864840716464.post-5251055289900122482011-06-19T18:35:18.531-07:002011-06-19T18:35:18.531-07:00I think you fundamentally misunderstand the issue....I think you fundamentally misunderstand the issue.<br /><br />Scientists will gladly tell you that they are roughly <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070202-global-warming.html" rel="nofollow">90% certain</a> that global warming is linked to human activity. (You can read excerpts of the statements of the various scientific organizations <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. That means that there's a 10% chance that there is some other explanation, including random noise. They will likewise tell you that there's something like a 90% chance that if we do nothing, the temperature will rise roughly 5 degrees. <br /><br />Now, if we do nothing, and it turns out that global warming is being caused by carbon dioxide, methane, etc. released primarily by human activity (90% probability), then the costs are trillions of dollars and potentially billions of lives. The cost of remediating global warming is estimated at a couple hundred billion. So, if we take steps against global warming and it turns out that the theory is wrong (10% probability), the cost is, let's say, $250B. But it turns out that there are benefits as well. For example, reducing coal burning directly reduces acid rain and damage to human lungs (you note this point by mentioning soot). Reducing auto emissions reduces the lung damage inflicted by NOx and fine particles. We could easily recoup the investment simply in reduced costs to human health. <br /><br />And depending on how one defines the precursors to global warming, the savings might be much bigger. Nuclear actually contributes heavily to global warming through mining and the energy intensive process of refining, shipping, handling, and storing nuclear fuel. The Daiichi nuclear plant cost Japan many billions of damage. Replacing nuclear power with wind and solar would reduce those costs. <br /><br />Germany has shown us that alternative energy is feasible. Their target is 80% by 2050. If Germany, with its northern climate can achieve 80% in 40 years, we ought to be able to reach that level sooner. <br /><br />While I always encourage talking with people with whom we simply disagree, there's no common ground between the overwhelming number of scientists who understand the climate change data and those who are in denial. We are facing the destruction of the planet due to the lies of the oil and coal industries. There's no sugarcoating it. The people who are leading this campaign of lies are not in disagreement with us. They are the enemies of every living being. <br /><br />One additional point: distributed generation makes sense for some applications (e.g. rural communities) but makes no sense as a national strategy. Parabolic collectors + boiler are already in operation are are near current market breakeven. By contrast, putting solar panels on every roof means lots of use of potentially toxic materials, relatively high costs, and many other downsides. <br /><br />I appreciate the amount of reading you do for your posts. I think this one exhibits some fundamental misunderstanding on how scientists think about climate change.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04761044906837521471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53246864840716464.post-66732545771586482472011-06-19T17:49:39.485-07:002011-06-19T17:49:39.485-07:00Firstly, the astronomers involved, including Dr. ...Firstly, the astronomers involved, including Dr. Hill, have publicly stated that they are not projecting a little ice age. They are projecting solar activity. Secondly, the Little Ice Age and a true ice age have entirely different forcing mechanisms. <br /><br />The Little Ice Age was produced by a combination of low solar activity and hugh volcanic activity which spewed smoke and ash into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight. Estimates of the temperature anomaly range from 0.3 to 1 degree Celcius,<br /><br />A true Ice Age is initiated by Milankovich Cycles, changes in the earth's obliquity, precession and the eccentricity of the planet's orbit. These cycles happen over periods of 31,000 and 100,000 years. Earth is currently IN an ice age, as parts of the planet continue to be dominated by ice. The conditions we are currently experiencing (a planet largely free from glaciers), in which our civilization developed, is referred to as an interglacial. It began approximately 12,000 years ago, and the current Milankovich Cycle will not end it for another twenty thousand years.<br /><br />The studies you reference have not even been through the peer-review process, and a number of respected solar physicists have stated their reservations about the research. But even if a Grand Minimum were to occur, it is unlikely make a significant dent in increasing temperatures over the 21st century. <a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042710.shtml" rel="nofollow">Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010</a> examined this exact scenario, concluding the likely temperature impact to be no more than -0.3 degrees C, against an anthropogenic temperature rise of 3.7-4.5 degrees C.Ben Wolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07726143508849742734noreply@blogger.com