Why Did Global Warming Become a Moral Matter?
Bawana
Why Did Global Warming Become a Moral Matter?
By Tim Thorstenson
As a scientist, I find the current strategy of the global warming
crusade to be fascinating. Particularly because I am a scientist, I
also find it insulting. Everyone should find it very disturbing.
I am referring to the fact that the global warming issue is now
regarded as a "moral" matter by its advocates. None other than The
High Priest of Global Warming (Al Gore) has decreed it as such. Of
course, there is some obvious humor in this because the liberals will
also tell you that you "cannot legislate morality". Well, it does not
take complicated logic to conclude that if global warming is indeed a
moral matter and if it is true that you cannot legislate morality,
then it should hold that you cannot legislate global warming.
But making funny distracts us from a deeper concern that should worry
anyone who wants to see the truth remain relevant in the matters that
face our society. To see this deeper danger, let us forget about
global warming for just a moment and consider morality in very general
terms.
There are numerous ways to define morality, but one that is
particularly helpful here is to regard morality as the "lens" through
which one views the facts. Morality should not be used to simply deny
the facts; and people who really understand morality do not use it
that way. Rather, they use morality to put the facts in a proper
context. Morality tells them "what to make of the facts".
This sounds a little abstract, so consider a practical example:
Let us assume that Bob has just shot George dead with a shotgun and
that this is an undeniable fact supported by overwhelming evidence.
Now, one could use a moral argument to suggest that the shooting was
justified as an act of self-defense. Alternately, one could also use a
moral argument to insist that the shooting was cold-blooded murder.
But one cannot use a moral argument to insist that the shooting simply
did not happen. In other words, moral considerations influence how we
view the facts and can be used to argue "what we should make of the
facts", but they cannot be used to literally change or deny the facts.
Whether a claimed fact is indeed true should be a purely intellectual
question, rather than a moral one.
Now consider, in contrast, how "morality" is being employed by global
warming advocates like Al Gore:
For many years, global warming seemed to be a fact-focused debate. But
a persistent problem for the advocates has been dissenting scientific
opinion. Some very reputable scientists hold that global warming may
be attributed to natural phenomena like the intensity of solar
radiation.
Others have valid questions about how much warming will actually occur
and how severe the resulting effects will really be. Still others
suggest that, if the problem is indeed real and serious, then serious
responses are indicated. These folks propose an honest examination of
real solutions (like a renewed emphasis on nuclear power) instead of
the childish games of useless treaties, carbon credits, windmills and
fluorescent light bulbs that seem to enamor so many of the advocates.
It is one thing to write these dissenting opinions off as factually
false, but this is apparently no longer regarded as adequate by the
global warming advocates. The dissent keeps popping up, it backed by
some very reputable people wielding very credible facts, and the
availability of alternate information outlets has made it impossible
to smother the doubters and dissenters.
Now enter the moral angle. If global warming is now a moral matter, it
would seem to suggest an associated implication that these
inconvenient viewpoints are immoral. Apparently it is now the duty of
"good" people to reject these opinions on this "moral" basis and
without regard to whether they are factually true or false.
The most bizarre aspect of this strategy is that it is exactly what
the liberals have always (unfairly) accused us conservatives of doing.
Here, morality is not being used as a lens through which to view the
facts, but rather as a hammer that can smash the inconvenient ones.
Regardless of the evidence to the contrary, I must not believe it
possible for Bob to have shot George because such a fact is not
compatible with the accepted moral viewpoint! If I dare to believe
otherwise, then I am "immoral".
The message of these pseudo-moralists is that "good" people must start
by accepting the pre-ordained orthodox conclusion and then work
backwards through the claimed facts, making not an intellectual
assessment of whether they are indeed true, but rather a "moral"
assessment of whether or not they agree with the conclusion. Things
claimed as facts which are "good" (in this moral sense) should be
embraced and those which are "bad" (in this same moral sense) should
be discarded, not because they are factually false, but because they
are "immoral".
In all honesty, this should scare the heck out of everyone. This is an
atmosphere in which scientific inquiry is steered not by factual
truth, but by a pre-ordained "moral" position. What is at work here is
exactly what the liberals have always claimed to condemn. How is this
any different from the decree of a radical theocratic dictator who
will allow only those scientific conclusions which are approved by his
church?
The liberals always claimed that such behavior - allowing moral
considerations to trump factual ones - was the ultimate evil. But
apparently, even this "ultimate evil" becomes "acceptable strategy" if
the cause is justified. This is "liberal moral relativism" taken to a
whole new level.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/why_did_global_warming_become.html
at March 23, 2007 - 07:57:45 AM EDT
Your Scientist
news:1174651125....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> As a scientist, I find the current strategy of the global
> warming crusade to be fascinating. Particularly because I
> am a scientist, I also find it insulting. Everyone should
> find it very disturbing.
We have freedom of religion in this country. Global Warming is
one of the fastest growing faith based religions!
Have not most religions and science been at odds from time to
time? Why would you feel insulted by a new, faith based
religion. You have to admit that they have the PR and
advertising thing down to a science.
Your Scientist
--
http://www.globalcooling.name
Saving the world one therm at a time.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Stefan Wolfe
"Your Scientist" <NOS...@globalcooling.name> wrote in message
news:Xns98FCA826C4617...@66.150.105.47...
> "Bawana" <mrbaw...@yahoo.com> published in
> news:1174651125....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> As a scientist, I find the current strategy of the global
>> warming crusade to be fascinating. Particularly because I
>> am a scientist, I also find it insulting. Everyone should
>> find it very disturbing.
>
> We have freedom of religion in this country. Global Warming is
> one of the fastest growing faith based religions!
>
> Have not most religions and science been at odds from time to
> time? Why would you feel insulted by a new, faith based
> religion. You have to admit that they have the PR and
> advertising thing down to a science.
It does seem like a religion, similar to scientology. Al Gore is the
parallel to Tom Cruise. However, I wouldn't push this too far because the
next thing you know, these "missionaries" will get the tax exempt status
entitled to any "church".
The good side of this religion is that it has the unintended side effect of
fighting terrorism and other villains such as Hugo Chavez. If we end up
oxidizing renewable carbon based energy sources like ethanol or settling for
the visual pollution of windmills in lieu of hazardous airborne fossil fuel
pollution, this results in less wealth being redistributed to those who want
to destroy us, regardless of the relevance of so called "greenhouse gasses"
to our weather. For this reason alone, I no longer let this pseudo science
bother me. Fossil fuel has simply become far too unreliable and not suitable
for any business or society at large to depend upon, considering the huge
importance of energy in our lives. Society needs a kick in the butt to
change over to something more reliable (Brazil is a pioneer in this area) so
this religion may end up serving us well, even if the science is phoney.
me
"Stefan Wolfe" <ste...@eml.com> wrote in message
news:460485f7$0$5771$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
You finally get it. It took you long enough.
BTW your science is just as phony as theirs is.
Stefan Wolfe
"me" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6Q%Mh.10587$nV1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> BTW your science is just as phony as theirs is.
I don't recall saying anything particularly scientific in this thread but I
would be glad to take you on in any subject involving the classical
sciences. You are just words...you personify "the other BS".
JimmyD®
True but you left out their war on capitalism and If you invented one of
those magnet powered perpetual motion generators, they would appose them
too.
Souls Black as Coal
Souls Black as Coal
Souls Black as Coal
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>
[ snip ]
> Fossil fuel has simply become far too unreliable and not suitable
> for any business or society at large to depend upon, considering
> the huge importance of energy in our lives.
Just a quick side thought: any ideas how aircraft will be powered
when the enviro-wackos outlaw use of petroleum-based fuels?
Oh - I forgot; they'll just buy some pollution credits for their
Gulfstreams, planting a few trees.
Never mind.
Len
> Just a quick side thought: any ideas how aircraft will be powered
> when the enviro-wackos outlaw use of petroleum-based fuels?
>
based fuels and power generation so we can live like they did back in 1800. It
will be the spine of our argument in the war on the environmentalists.
Prophet Limbaugh tells us that right wing arguments are always sound and make
sense. He says our thoughts get clouded as you earn a degree, so it's best to
avoid college and other book learnin unless it's by approved conservative
experts.
Even though the US government uses the pollution credit method now to fight
emissions, if the liberals suggest it we will denounce it as leftist poppycock
and nonsense and it will prove once and for all that it is the right wing who
cares about the environment and cleaning it up should be up to the polluters on
a voluntary basis.
schoenf...@gmail.com
> "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> published innews:1174651125....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > As a scientist, I find the current strategy of the global
> > warming crusade to be fascinating. Particularly because I
> > am a scientist, I also find it insulting. Everyone should
> > find it very disturbing.
>
> We have freedom of religion in this country. Global Warming is
> one of the fastest growing faith based religions!
Don't be fooled by the propagandists.
There are three concepts:
[1] Global Warming
[2] CO2 causing Global Warming
[3] Global Warming causing CO2.
The data confirms [1].
The data and physics massively falsify [2].
The data and physics confirm [3].
But the propagandists blur [2] and [1] together to deceive fools into
believing advocates of [3] are "denying" [1].
Having succeded in merging [2] into [1], the propagandists are now
merging [1] into
[4] A moral cause
You see, people want to be "good" and "moral". By appealing to the
unconscious and inner desires of the masses they can make people WANT
a solution to [1].
This way the masses will not only accept a CO2 tax, but DEMAND global
taxation, as it will make them happy.
THIS IS ADVANCED SOCIAL ENGINEERING.
> Have not most religions and science been at odds from time to
> time? Why would you feel insulted by a new, faith based
> religion. You have to admit that they have the PR and
> advertising thing down to a science.
The science Propaganda derives directly from psychiatry. It's founder
was Edward Bernase, the nephew of Sigmund Freud. The history of this
science is brilliantly covered by this documentary
CENTURY OF SELF
PART 1:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151
PART 2:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3031880283858584099
PART 3:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7009899812873111112
PART 4:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6884155963216756796
Tony Jones
> There are three concepts:
>
> [1] Global Warming
>
> [2] CO2 causing Global Warming
>
> [3] Global Warming causing CO2.
>
> The data confirms [1].
> The data and physics massively falsify [2].
> The data and physics confirm [3].
>
You must be an assclown.
Tony Jones
What is it with the rightist habit of using words outside of their meaning?
You are an assclown.
me
> Don't be fooled by the propagandists.
>
> There are three concepts:
>
[1] Global Warming
[2] Pollution
[3] Dependence on unstable areas of the world for energy
The data confirms [all three!].
But the propagandists blur the impact of each by scare tactics and
lobbying for subsidized oil and drilling rather than to move toward
alternative where they cannot make as much money. Feeding milk to the
cow.
Having succeeded in buying many politicians the propagandists are now
attacking [1] and ignoring [2] and [3] hoping they will go away as
issues.
THIS IS ADVANCED SOCIAL ENGINEERING.
In the same way this country was able to be fooled by propaganda into
an attack on a sovereign country against the wishes of the rest of the
world ignoring the lessons of history, they are now attempting to
convincing us that we should not try to do anything about [1] because
it's "natural" and [2] and [3] don't matter.
hank smith
> Having succeeded in buying many politicians the propagandists are now
> attacking [1] and ignoring [2] and [3] hoping they will go away as
> issues.
>
> THIS IS ADVANCED SOCIAL ENGINEERING.
>
he is a wise and intelligent man. Using our military to invade and occupy
countries with oil and force our ways on them or kill them trying is a
brilliant solution because once they act and live like us, they will be us.
Bush doesn't believe in socialist engineering.
jose
> "Your Scientist" <NOSP...@globalcooling.name> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns98FCA826C4617...@66.150.105.47...
>
> > "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> published in
There are better ways to deal with the Saudi princes and the Wahabi
lunatics
and asshole tyrants like Chavez.
Ethanol is a carbon based chemical that burns exactly like
hydrocarbons in
gasoline. Ethanol reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide, water,
and heat; duh!
The major differences are that it costs more and burns less
efficiently than gasoline.
Stefan Wolfe
"jose" <josef...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174780851.7...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I know but their thinking is that the dynamic carbon cycle of green power
today recycles the CO2 from ethanol back and forth, For example, I grow
corn, the turn it into ethanol. The corns consumes CO2 and releases O2 in
the photosynthresis process. I burn the CO2 in my car. The CO2 gets consumed
by more corn and sugar that is producing ethanol, and supplying the world
with more oxygen. Environmentalists generally take credit for inventing the
photosythesis process (I think it was Al Gore).
Fossil fuels release vast amounts of carbon dioxide whose carbon dioxide
recycling process ended billions of years ago. Now when we dig it up and
burn it, the prehistoric lifeforms that would have consumed the CO2 are long
dead and buried, thus the CO2 does not balance...we have an alleged
surplus.according the this simpleton theoory. The issue is not creating the
CO2, it is creating it in such a way that it is consumed and burned in a
perfectly balanced mode so that at all times the number of CO2 molecules in
the earth's atmosphere remains constant, rather than increasing, as they are
alleged to do with fossil sources.
The GW religion has you believe that we can delay global warming by using
such reusable energy forms. There are many technical problems with their
model although it is simple enough that people of inferior scientific
aptitude often accept it as incontrovertible truth. There is plenty of
evidence that the 1 degree farenheit that our planet has increased in T over
the last century has been far more influenced by solar effects that have
also affected other planets in our solar system by natural events such as
the cyclical increases in solar cosmic ray flux. Like in this days of
Galilieo's persecution by the catholic church, to environmentalists, the
EARTH is the center of the world, completely independent of Mars and other
planets, and we have complete control over how the weather on the planet
behaves. The sun is merely a passive space heater, never changing, always
presenting the same conditions to her planets, and mankind is screwing it up
by burning dinosaur bones. Why is Mars also warming up? Don't confuse me
with facts! You're bordering on heresy!
H2P...@gmail.com
H2P...@gmail.com
Joe Fischer
>I know but their thinking is that the dynamic carbon cycle of green power
>today recycles the CO2 from ethanol back and forth, For example, I grow
>corn, the turn it into ethanol. The corns consumes CO2 and releases O2 in
>the photosynthresis process. I burn the CO2 in my car. The CO2 gets consumed
>by more corn and sugar that is producing ethanol, and supplying the world
>with more oxygen. Environmentalists generally take credit for inventing the
>photosythesis process (I think it was Al Gore).
You jest. How much room does it take for
fermentation vats to produce ethanol, I want to start
making some for my car.
It would be great if you could relate some things
about the operation, many of us need to start making
our own motor fuel.
And why corn, is it easier to get the yeast working
with corn, surely you aren't trying for a bourbon flavor
for the car.
Joe Fischer
j frei
news:5anc03t638fnane1r...@4ax.com...
plus ethanol does not come from arabia. and while we are burning corn,
those third worlders will starve....less illegals crossing our
borders...yay!
I would prefer an electric car that you plug in at night - generate
electricity from nukes - the cleanest source yet - and the car gets about
100 miles per charge with a top speed of 65 mph. Most people commuting to
work will have all the car they need. For longer trips, you buy a second
car or SUV or pickup that runs on propane, methane, CNG, ethanol, gasoline,
diesel, or hydrogen...maybe a rental market will be created to supply these
secondary cars.
George Conklin
"j frei" <no...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1TDNh.131184
> I would prefer an electric car that you plug in at night - generate
> electricity from nukes - the cleanest source yet - and the car gets about
> 100 miles per charge with a top speed of 65 mph. Most people commuting to
> work will have all the car they need.
True, but only because the RTP region is FLAT. You could not get even a few
miles in Boone, for example.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>
> I would prefer an electric car that you plug in at night - generate
> electricity from nukes - the cleanest source yet - and the car
> gets about 100 miles per charge with a top speed of 65 mph.
> Most people commuting to work will have all the car they need.
> For longer trips, you buy a second car or SUV or pickup that runs
> on propane, methane, CNG, ethanol, gasoline, diesel, or hydrogen...m
Steam. Mature technology (that can benefit from current advances);
renewable fuel; more powerful than a speeding locomotive ( Naw -
that's superman. How about "AS" powerful as a locomotive?).
It might even be useful, permanently removing stupid drivers from the
road who think it is the job of some mechanic they hire to be alert
to the condition of their vehicle, instead of themselves.
A runaway boiler is a sight to behold: 2-10 kiloton yield.
hanson
news:46080C4D...@yahoo.com...
j frei wrote:
For longer trips, you buy a second car or SUV ....
>
[Dweezil]
How about "AS" powerful as a locomotive?).
>
...yeah, yeah, yeah... Here's the REAL CAUSE for Global Warming:
http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_mar2007/PolarBearParty.htm
and these ones here knew that it was a Moral Matter,... long time ago:
http://www.jonco48.com/blog/Global_20Warning_20..._small.jpg
ahahaha...hahahahanson
john fernbach
>
> True but you left out their war on capitalism and If you invented one of
> those magnet powered perpetual motion generators, they would appose them
Jimmy - If you invent a perpetual motion machine, PLEASE LET US KNOW.
I'm not a liberal, but a democratic socialist, so I can't speak for
the liberals.
But if you can create perpetual motion, all of the socialists,
liberals, conservatives
& libertarians I've met will be amazed & impressed.
Any progress on this, Jimmy?
Larry Mason
>
> There are better ways to deal with the Saudi princes and the Wahabi
> lunatics and asshole tyrants like Chavez.
>
> Ethanol is a carbon based chemical that burns exactly like hydrocarbons
> in gasoline. Ethanol reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide,
> water, and heat; duh! The major differences are that it costs more and
> burns less efficiently than gasoline.
>
The major difference is that the carbon in ethanol and petroleum is that
the carbon in the ethanol was atmospheric CO2 until a couple of months
before it is burned in your car. The petroleum carbon was safely locked
away in its underground vault where it was not dangerous to the
environment. Of course, eventually, that petroleum might be released into
the atmosphere again by a volcano but in the meantime ...
I prefer using the Thermal Conversion Process which uses any hydrocarbon
(like garbage, old tires, tree stumps, and newspapers) and produces
pollution free oil, fertilizer, and carbon black for about $15-$20 per
barrel. That way we can recycle the same carbon over and over without
adding to what's already in the atmosphere.
Larry Mason
j frei
news:knPNh.15262$PL....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
wrong, electric motors generate more torque than internal combustion engines
per unit of energy consumed.
Bill Ward
Your units are mixed up. Torque is not dependent on energy consumed.
If I hang a 100 lb weight from a 1' torque wrench, it will read 100 lb-ft
all day, with no energy input at all.
I believe you may be referring to the torque vs RPM curves. ICE's have no
stall torque, while a traction motor has plenty.
Energy consumed is a completely different issue.
Regards,
Bill Ward
Gordon
Joking aside...are trees really more effective than tall grasses
in terms of converting CO2 to plant carbohydrates and free
oxygen? It seems the amount of sunlight that somehow passes
through the trees' leaves and strikes the ground is greater than
the amount of sunlight that passes through a thick cover of tall
grass and reaches the ground.
If this is approximately true, clearing the forests and making
use of the land for agricultural purposes may not have had as
much impact on global warming as the greenies are saying. A field
of corn may be a better CO2 converter than the same area in
trees. Gordon
Bill Ward
I think marine algae grows faster than any land plant.
GOP 4th Reich Microscopic Brains
The problem with your guess is ignorance of the underground world.
Plants have feeder roots that grow cells on the axial tips, where the
cell lifespan is measured in minutes as cells are sloughed off to push
through the abrasive dirt. As much as half the plant primary
productivity (photosythesis sugars) is used up underground. Trees have
vast root networks while corn is toppled by strong winds. The soil
bacteria eat the root detritus and exhale carbon dioxide. CO2 near the
surface returns to the air virtually immediately, in less than one
year. Deep CO2 is dissolved in water carried downwards and lost to
chemical reactions underground (CO2 dissolved in water makes a weak
acid, carbonic acid, which reacts with calcium to make chalk and
limestones).
Further, cropland is bare much of the year. It is only a few months
out of the 12 that it is covered, far less than the tree shaded ground
per annum.
Insignificant Flyspecks
Joe Fischer
>Joking aside...are trees really more effective than tall grasses
>in terms of converting CO2 to plant carbohydrates and free
>oxygen? It seems the amount of sunlight that somehow passes
>through the trees' leaves and strikes the ground is greater than
>the amount of sunlight that passes through a thick cover of tall
>grass and reaches the ground.
There is another problem with trees, they
not only trade CO2 for free oxygen, but they also
evaporate along with transpiration a lot of water,
maybe 50 or 100 pounds per day, and water
vapor has many times the effect of CO2 in the
regions of the atmosphere where there is water,
which can be up to 60,000 feet.
And the amount of CO2 above 60,000 feet
is so small because of the low density of the air
and the tiny fraction of CO2, there isn't much effect
possible.
Where there is water, almost all wavelengths
are absorbed by water, and few absorbed, plus the
radiation is absorbed according to how many molecules
of either are present, there is essentially no priority
on which gas absorbs and which one doesn't.
So where there are trees, there can either be
cooling because of the water in the air, or there can
be warming because of the water in the air, and
there can be cooling of the lower atmosphere if it
rains, and warming of the air closer to space if it
rains, and there can be a lot of rain, that is why
they call some forests "rain forests".
And because of the many different effects
the water from the trees can have, the climate
models are broke.
Joe Fischer
Insignificant Flyspecks
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>
> The petroleum carbon was safely locked away in its underground
> vault where it was not dangerous to the environment.
Larry - are you sure you aren't a lobbyist for those little,
gray, bug-eyed silicon-based lifeforms?
Carbon may be dangerous to them - but that's what we're made of.
George Conklin
and the energy restores to the battery going downhill is never remotely
equal to that consumed going uphill.
jose
> "jose" <josefsop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
40 years ago the Chicken Littles were running about shrieking that the
planet was doomed because of over population resulting mass famine.
Today it's global warming. Tomorrow why cares.
Insignificant Cockroach Turds
George Conklin
Prepare for the second coming of Christ....that is an even older one.
Lloyd
> On Mar 24, 5:38 am, Your Scientist <NOSP...@globalcooling.name> wrote:
>
> > "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> published innews:1174651125....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > As a scientist, I find the current strategy of the global
> > > warming crusade to be fascinating. Particularly because I
> > > am a scientist, I also find it insulting. Everyone should
> > > find it very disturbing.
>
> > We have freedom of religion in this country. Global Warming is
> > one of the fastest growing faith based religions!
>
>
> There are three concepts:
>
> [1] Global Warming
>
> [2] CO2 causing Global Warming
>
> [3] Global Warming causing CO2.
>
> The data confirms [1].
> The data and physics massively falsify [2].
> The data and physics confirm [3].
There are two concepts:
[1] You're a liar.
[2] You're stupid.
Please tell us which the data confirms.
Souls Black as Coal
Unequivocal, "warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1603320,00.html
Warming May Create Climates, Cut Others
Some climates may disappear from Earth entirely, not just from their
current locations, while new climates could develop if the planet
continues to warm, a study says. Such changes would endanger some
plants and animals while providing new opportunities for others, said
John W. Williams, an assistant professor of geography at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Using global change forecasts prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, researchers led by Williams used computer models to
estimate how climates in various parts of the world would be affected.
Their findings are being published in this week's online edition of
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The IPCC, representing the world's leading climate scientists,
reported in February that "warming of the climate system is
unequivocal, as is now evident from observation of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice
and rising global average sea level."
Tropical regions in particular may face unexpected changes,
particularly the rain forests in the Amazon and Indonesia, Williams'
researchers concluded.
This was surprising, Williams said in a telephone interview, since the
tropics tend to have little variation in weather.
But that also means temperature changes of 3 or 4 degrees in these
regions might have more impact than a change of 5 to 8 degrees in a
region that is accustomed to regular changes.
Species living in tropical areas may be less able to adapt, he said,
adding that that is speculative and needs further study.
Areas like the Southeastern United States and the Arabian Peninsula
may also be affected, the researchers said, adding that mountain areas
such as in Peruvian and Colombian Andes and regions such as Siberia
and southern Australia face a risk of climates disappearing
altogether.
That doesn't mean these regions would have no climate at all - rather
their climate would change and the conditions currently in these areas
would not occur elsewhere on Earth.
That would pose a risk to species living in those areas, Williams
observed.
If some regions develop new climates that don't now exist, that might
provide an opportunity for species that live there, Williams said.
"But we can't make a prediction because it's outside our current
experience and outside the experience of these species
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>
> Dweezil Dwarftosser <f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Larry Mason wrote:
> >
> > > The petroleum carbon was safely locked away in its underground
> > > vault where it was not dangerous to the environment.
> >
> > Larry - are you sure you aren't a lobbyist for those little,
> > gray, bug-eyed silicon-based lifeforms?
> >
> > Carbon may be dangerous to them - but that's what we're made of.
>
> Unequivocal, "warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
If someone claims that *any* quasi-scientific pronouncement
of his is "unequivocal", there is absolute certainty that he
is NOT a scientist at all; he is a true believer in his religion.
jambaugh
> plus ethanol does not come from arabia.
Are you sure? Look into the source materials for nitrate fertilizer.
One of the main ingredients in ammonia production is hydrogen.
A great deal of industrial hydrogen comes from petroleum refining.
So in fact some of the ethanol does indeed come from Arabia.
James
Crackpot Lemmings Chow for Exxon's Tiger Teeth & Claws
Earth Party"?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/26/opinion/main2608369.shtml
The GOP Vs. Global Warming
The New Republic: Why Are Republicans More Skeptical, Even As Evidence
Grows?
(The New Republic) This column was written by Jonathan Chait. Last
year, the National Journal asked a group of Republican senators and
House members: "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" Of the
respondents, 23 percent said yes, 77 percent said no. In the year
since that poll, of course, global warming has seized a massive amount
of public attention. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change released a study, with input from 2,000 scientists worldwide,
finding that the certainty on man-made global warming had risen to 90
percent.
So, the magazine asked the question again last month. The results?
Only 13 percent of Republicans agreed that global warming has been
proved. As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans
are actually getting more skeptical. Al Gore's recent congressional
testimony on the subject, and the chilly reception he received from
GOP members, suggest the discouraging conclusion that skepticism on
global warming is hardening into party dogma. Like the notion that tax
cuts are always good or that President Bush is a brave war leader,
it's something you almost have to believe if you're an elected
Republican.
How did it get this way? The easy answer is that Republicans are just
tools of the energy industry. It's certainly true that many of them
are. Leading global warming skeptic Representative Joe L. Barton (R-
Texas), for instance, was the subject of a fascinating story in the
Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago. The bottom line is that his
relationship to the energy industry is as puppet relates to hand.
But the financial relationship doesn't quite explain the entirety of
GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry
has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the
last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs.
The truth is more complicated - and more depressing: A small number of
hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the
thinking for the whole conservative movement.
Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course,
neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend
to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a
tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming
professional consensus.
National Review magazine, with its popular Web site, is a perfect
example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming,
or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution.
Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology at work here is pretty
clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate
science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore
as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their
thinking on the issue.
Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted
aside. Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that
Representative Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John
Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that
humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican
refused and was denied a seat.
Representatives Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md. and Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich.,
both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee.
Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this
case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican
researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global
warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global
warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood
lefties.
The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative
figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank
and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the
Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the
phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.
You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming
understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their
favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral
element of the solution. Senator John McCain, who supports action on
global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The
technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case
for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.
In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you
couldn't build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is
perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah,
Rush Limbaugh listeners, let's fight global warming and stick it to
those hippies!
By Jonathan Chait
If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's
top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion, and
analysis.
Crackpot Lemmings Chow for Exxon's Tiger Teeth & Claws
All the hydrogen produced in refineries is consumed in the refineries.
No hydrogen is exported off refinery grounds.
Ammonia is made from natural gas. It's till a fossil fuel and still
merchandised by major petrochemical companies, and some is imported as
liquified natural gas (LNG) from a number of producer companies who
also sell oil. The ammonia in turn is used to make fertilizers which
subsidizes the costs of production the same weapons-grade ammonia used
in the global arms trafficing networks that incite bush wars and Bush
wars
jose
Claws" <Crackpot.Lemming-c...@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 8:40 am, "jambaugh" <e...@jamesbaugh.info> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 25, 7:48 pm, "j frei" <n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > plus ethanol does not come from arabia.
>
> > Are you sure? Look into the source materials for nitrate fertilizer.
> > One of the main ingredients in ammonia production is hydrogen.
> > A great deal of industrial hydrogen comes from petroleum refining.
> > So in fact some of the ethanol does indeed come from Arabia.
>
> > James
>
> All the hydrogen produced in refineries is consumed in the refineries.
> No hydrogen is exported off refinery grounds.
That may be true today. What about the hydrogen automobile the
treehuggers keep squealing about? Where are they going to get
the hydrogen to run those engines?
>
> Ammonia is made from natural gas. It's till a fossil fuel and still
> merchandised by major petrochemical companies, and some is imported as
> liquified natural gas (LNG) from a number of producer companies who
> also sell oil. The ammonia in turn is used to make fertilizers which
> subsidizes the costs of production the same weapons-grade ammonia used
> in the global arms trafficing networks that incite bush wars and Bush
> wars
It appears that you've taken a leap without completing the cycle.
Fertilizers are
needed to produce the biomass used to produce ethane which in turn,
according
to the enviroloons, will provide an alternative source of fuel to
power our economy.
So we end up replacing one carbon based fuel with another carbon based
fuel (ethane).
Ethane costs more than gasoline and is less efficient than gasoline.
Both produce
CO2.
I realize that the hoped for result will be a balance between the O2
produced by the
growing of biomass and the CO2 produced by the burning of ethane
derived from it.
However, even if this loony idea were to come to fruition, 80% of the
world's population
will continue to use oil as their energy source as they slowly starve
while the western
democracies will curtail their food production so that sufficient
acreage is devoted to
the production of biomass needed to satisfy our every growing and more
costly energy
requirements.
Meanwhile, as the western democracies decline, China, India and the
rest of the
emerging nations will produce as much CO2 as is humanly possible.
Mitchell Jones
wrote:
***{Here's what the environment thinks of environmentalists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-zlQ-Hui44. --MJ}***
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
fredf...@spamcop.net
The reason is simple.
Some people who do not understand science think that
anything that even has the appearance of science is
wonderful. Others who do not understand science
think that everything that they don't want to be true
is a lie advanced by some sort of conspiracy.
People who want a course of action that is contrary
to what guidance (if any) is provided by science
take advantage of both sorts by proclaiming that
science supports them, and that opposition is
an immoral conspiracy.
Thus you have claims that fluoridation, racial
integration, pollution abatement, vaccination,
nuclear power, solar power, geothermal power,
fossil fuels, whatever, are immoral conspiracies,
usually on the part of communists, though that
particular scapegoat is being replaced by 'secularists'
even as communists replaced 'the devil' , or on
the part of greedy capitalists, or that that astrology,
numerology, polygraphy, palmistry, spiritualism or
whatever is sound science that is opposed by
the greedy capitalist doctors, lawyers, or whomever.
The bogus arguments are often most
strongly advanced by people who seek only
to profit in power and money from the
controversy itself. The last thing they want
is to win, because then they'd have to find
another devil.
--
FF
Larry Mason
> Souls Black as Coal wrote:
>>
>> Dweezil Dwarftosser <f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Larry Mason wrote:
>>>
>>>> The petroleum carbon was safely locked away in its underground
>>>> vault where it was not dangerous to the environment.
>>>
>>> Larry - are you sure you aren't a lobbyist for those little,
>>> gray, bug-eyed silicon-based lifeforms?
>>>
>>> Carbon may be dangerous to them - but that's what we're made of.
>>
"Moderation in all things." A moderate amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is
good. An immoderate amount (too much or too little) is a bad thing.
If we dramatically increase the amount of CO2 there's a good chance that
it will result is a change and no matter what that change is we probably
won't like it.
By the way, as a computer programmer/system administrator I have to say
that those silicon-based lifeforms are cute as a button. That's why I see
so many people holding them up to there ears and talking to them. :-)
Larry Mason
Gordon
<ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
>
(snip)
>
>By the way, as a computer programmer/system administrator I have to say
>that those silicon-based lifeforms are cute as a button. That's why I see
>so many people holding them up to there ears and talking to them. :-)
>
>Larry Mason
>
Larry, are you saying they hold Radiolarian shells to their ears?
http://radpage.univ-lyon1.fr/rad_en.html