cbwm.

Homework for you. What happened in 1998 as far as climate is concerned and why would that cause it to be warmer?

Do you know the difference between climate and temperature and how one effects the other? And how that could produce short-term anomolies?

2005 and 2007 were both still warmer than 1998.

And this is why I don't get in to these types of discussions.. It's impossible for some people to play nice..

I'm going back to burning tires.. It's been way too cold around here and I want it warmer..

Just as a comment, there are still people who refuse to acknowledge the adverse effects of smoking. My mother is one such person. She will not believe that my grandfather developed lung cancer from smoking and my grandmother developed it from being exposed to second hand smoke.

There is still a place for illogical people in today's world, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

And this is why I don't get in to these types of discussions.. It's impossible for some people to play nice..

I'm going back to burning tires.. It's been way too cold around here and I want it warmer..

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. Burning tires... very good. I've long felt that the only reason we have plastic on the planet is because the earth wanted plastic. If the earth didn't want plastic, it quite simply would never have been created.

You've heard the Estonians are doing their part to reduce greenhouse gases.
http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEditi...aspx?id=764171

Personally, I say let em fart and belch. Sorry for the shameless plug, but smart people are busy buying elevated property near the ocean in Central America. Its cheap, and with any luck, it will soon be beach front.

Come on cbwm, you have kept referring to 1998. Don't you know what happened in 1998? You should know since it figures in your corporate denial agenda.

/taps foot impatiently. Wait for it..... Wait for it...... aw common man. Spell it out for me. (Small words only please)

I'll have to since you just parrot what far-out extremists come up with.

El Nino
http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ed-in-1998.htm

The decrease in temperature around the 1950's was due to a dramatic increase in use of aerosol pollutants. When they were regulated out, CO2 effects resumed.

Originally Posted by joder

I'll have to since you just parrot what far-out extremists come up with.

I would never repeat anything Al Gore had to say.

Originally Posted by joder

El Nino
http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ed-in-1998.htm

The decrease in temperature around the 1950's was due to a dramatic increase in use of aerosol pollutants. When they were regulated out, CO2 effects resumed.

I absolutely LOVE IT! Its a talking points site that shows people how to deal with those pesky Global Warming Skeptics! Its really terrific! They moderate the conversation to keep it respectful, deleting posts containing personal attacks and for the most part, try to address scientific counter claims with additional science. If they could just remove the IPCC's "90% sure we know what the hell we are talking about, thus holier than thou" type of attitude, it is actually the type of conversation that should be taking place on the subject. The very article format screams it, when they box in and title the scientific counter claim as "The Skeptic Argument" and entitle their counter argument as "What Science Says".

Unfortunately, most layman (like me) review a site like this and see one set of scientists arguing with another and are left to rely on the raw data and common sense to form our opinion. For instance, you say we had cooling around the 1950s because of aerosols, until they were outlawed. Sounds like we need to bring them back and put an end to global warming once and for all.

FYI, any of you who have ever taken sales training for any type of product will be introduced to a book formated very much like this website containing objection handling information. Every potential objection a potential customer may have to purchasing your product will be listed, with the proper response to get the customer to buy. Its how sales works.

Since you can't argue with the scientific data, I'll take it as you give up. You don't like a science site that quotes science but you sheepishly accept a newspaper article with a pundits opinion.

2005 and 2007 and still the warmest years, not 1998.

EDIT:
If you had an inkling of finding out the facts, you would do some research instead of just looking at news articles with no data. If you had done any investigation whatsoever, you would find out how CO2 effects the atmosphere and what effects aerosols do. But all you can do is make fun of any site with real data. You have not discussed anything in a way that would show you have even a basic understanding of the science issues involved.

Ah Joder. they say you should never get high on your own supply, but I can tell you've bought what you are selling, hook line and sinker. By the way, I can appreciate the tactic of throwing out a link to a semi-respectable site and declaring victory. If you had removed the personal barbs, it would have been an even more powerful technique. Unfortunately, it holds little more real scientific weight than throwing out a conspiracy theory site which claims Bush planned 9-11, and saying "There is your proof... I win".

Let me bring you back to a few inconvenient facts I've published throughout this thread in the form of real data from real sources.

1) According the the Hadley numbers, 1998 remains the hottest year on record. Period.
2) According to all three sets of numbers, Global warming has gone flat for 10 years, while CO2 emissions continue to soar.
3) For all years prior to 1979, Earth temperature has followed solar activity, practically verbatim.

Your Global Warming sales site works diligently at explaining these things away via El Nino/La Nina years, Aerosols, and a variety of other scientific means. At the end of the day, to the lay person, the proof remains far from iron clad. To the tree hugging climatologist, working for the international organization promoting this scare (IPCC), the proof remains only 90% convincing as they will tell you themselves. It leaves me to wonder why you are 100% convinced when the creators of this debacle are not.

Look at post #22 in this thread. So your saying that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies is selling snake oil science? The climate science at NASA says your libertarian political think tank is wrong.

EDIT: I need to pull your trick that didn't work: Are you saying the NASA climate scientists are liars?

GISS (Nasa) provides one (1) one set of Global temperature numbers. Their numbers show a leveling off of the warming trend for the last 10 years. The Hadley numbers show cooling. Both sets of numbers are commonly used. One of the problems the Global Warming folk have been having is determining what constitutes valid data. Upper Tropisphere? Lower Tropisphere? Water Temp? If so what body of water? Earth Temp? If so, from where? More and more data is being gathered from more and more locations, but it really highlights how much data they have been lacking for a very long time. In the mean time, they make assessments with the data they have. That means the GISS numbers as well as the Hadley numbers.

In short, your accusation that the "libertarian think tank" was lying about the data is completely groundless, and proven to be so by the data provided. Conversely, I don't think Nasa is fudging its numbers. Then again, NASA's numbers bear out the same anomaly I am referring to so there really isn't a conflict.

Okay my last post here. The vast majority of independent scientists disagree with you and the oil company paid scientists. My point is this: cbwm never read any science before making up his conclusions. You just found newspaper articles that agreed with your position. You talked about the IPCC as denying warming but never read their reports which unequivocally state warming continues. You deny what NASA climate scientists say that 2005 and 2007 were the warmest years when they do. You have never read how climate effects temperature or how El Nino could produce warmer surface temperatures. You just looked for "statistics" and newspaper articles that agreed with your preconceived political opinion.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Originally Posted by Feydakin

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Bah! How dare you quote National Geographic! Everyone knows they are nothing but a right wing think tank, beholden to the oil companies! Global Warming is REAL because the IPCC, Al Gore, and the Green Movement Profiteers says it is. That is all you need it know. Please take that National Geographic and add it to the stack of books we are burning, so we can have global warming without an argument.

I'm following in Al Gore's footsteps and looking at ways to profit from pollution.. The wife and I are looking at the process of selling carbon credits as a part of our investment strategy..

Actually, I find the whole process of selling carbon credits deceitful and profiteering on an impressive scale.. But since it seems to be one of the few approved ways to earn staggering profits from literally nothing, why not?? And for the record, it's incredibly expensive to live green.. It's why more people don't do it..

Originally Posted by Feydakin

I'm following in Al Gore's footsteps and looking at ways to profit from pollution.. The wife and I are looking at the process of selling carbon credits as a part of our investment strategy..

Actually, I find the whole process of selling carbon credits deceitful and profiteering on an impressive scale.. But since it seems to be one of the few approved ways to earn staggering profits from literally nothing, why not?? And for the record, it's incredibly expensive to live green.. It's why more people don't do it..

How is it more expensive to live green? It maybe expensive to those people who have a different lifestyle. Living green can be a lifestyle and it can be a helpful one too. For transportation, hybrids, converted engines may cost more but the mileage it can provide for a gallon of gasoline is better than an crappy regular car. It can save you more money.

Originally Posted by jabo

How is it more expensive to live green?

Many ways. "Green" home construction can mean a variety of things, from using materials whose production has low environmental impact, or eventual disposal has low environmental impact, or use will cause the home to have a lower environmental impact after it is built (Low energy use, low reflectivity of sunlight, maintenance of higher plant density). In almost every case, building materials labeled "Green" have cost more, until very recently.

Take "Green" roofs for instance. Garden roofs put plants and soil up top to decrease the environmental footprint, increase CO2 consuming plant life where the house sits, decrease reflection of sunlight, decrease water runoff, and aide in insulation of the top floor thereby hopefully decreasing heating/cooling electricity consumption. Great Idea. Unfortunately, the weight load of all that dirt, water, and plant life requires a significant amount of engineering work to deal with sway, and a significant investment in structural support to carry it. Those two items result in a significant chunk of change.

I mentioned Solar Electric incentives in California to go green and consume less. A baseline grid tie solar system will cost you $18,000 plus installation, and can run as much as $75k for something that will power your house itself. Until the deregulation of electricity in California, going green in this way was only for the rich, even with the $7500 tax rebate. These systems now have a 2-3 year period in which they become profitable, rather than the 10 years not so long ago. Also, although I hear this has changed, the previous solar systems also created engineering problems on light roofs due to the weight loading again.

Intelligent homes are becoming very popular in the "Green" movement. Your wall plugs, appliances, heating, cooling, all attached to a central computer which optimizes energy use within your house. How much more do you think it costs to put intelligent plugs in your house vs. regular plugs?

Until very recently, there was no such thing as a hybrid SUV, making it impossible for families of 5(2 parents 3 kids) to go green on their transport, unless they planned to buy two cars and travel separately.

Its also interesting to see many instances where going "Green" has unintended negative impacts on the environment. Brazil, for instance, is clear cutting and burning thousands of acres CO2 consuming Rainforest to make way for farming. Interestingly, a large chunk of Brazil's farming industry is for date palm oil, in order to make Bio-Diesel, and for this they are hailed as forward thinking environmentalists. How perverse is that?

The U.S. farming industry now selling corn for "Green" fuel has driven the cost of food through the roof, impacting the worlds poorest people in the worst way. Interestingly, that "Green" fuel also produces "Greenhouse gases".

Hybrid cars have only really become a realistic possibility due to huge advances in battery technology. Unfortunately, these new batteries (Li Ion and above) if improperly disposed of would be extremely hazardous to the environment. There aren't enough hybrids out yet to make it a real problem, but there soon will be.

Anyway, going "Green" is rarely cheap in the short run, and often has horrible side effects to the environment and people. I'm not saying its an unworthy cause, I just think people need to be sensible and realistic about things.

The house we are designing will cost roughly 2.5x the cost of a stick built home for the same square footage.. The geothermal heat pumps are 3x or more than the cost of a traditional air/furnace install.. The vertical wind mills alone will cost nearly $60k to power one small home (we are looking at the option of installing more to sell the "credits").. And on and on and on (cistern / managed tree farm).. I could just build a house like Al's and be done with it.. But that's not very "responsible" of me (or him)..

As for "hybrids" and electrics.. Those are the same as carbon credits.. They are "feel good now" responses that do little more than shift the pollution source away from the tailpipe without actually addressing the real issues.. All those batteries use various heavy metals and are toxic when disposed of.. All the plastics that the cars are made of need to come from and go somewhere at the end of their life cycle.. And the electricity isn't "free" (well unless you get it from my house, then the pathetic solar and small wind generator help) and must be generated using coal or nuclear generation.. They don't "solve" anything.. Just shift the problem somewhere else.. Not to mention that study done that showed that over the entire life cycle of the vehicle, from creation to disposal, and H2 was environmentally more sound than a hybrid..

The things that people do on a daily basis in the name of being green tend to be insignificant feel good actions.. But ask someone to step up and do something "real" and it gets real expensive real fast.. And buying carbon credits isn't the answer..

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Sorry, was alive in the 70s and got to watch it all the time on tv..

Then you need to learn the difference between some TV show and scientific opinion, before trying to take part in a discussion about reality. Or, by your logic, alien abductions are on TV all the time, especially the X Files, so people in lab coats therefore must believe in extra terrestrial life. It's telling that the deniers in this thread appeal pretty much only to logical fallacies.