Man Made Global Warming, or not? (in Debates)

New article:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/26/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/jw9xb/research_published_in_the_prestigious_journal/c2fmh65

I'm quite convinced for some years now that the effort of men is negligable compared to the earth cycle of carbon buildup/ice age.

my feelings haven't changed since the last discussion of this so i am just reposting what i said in that thread:


Admindudemus February 11 2010 7:17 PM EST
as i have said before, the whole global warming debate is a red herring. the fossil fuel supply is finite. we need alternate energy. there are clean alternatives.

if we wait until fossil fuels are more expensive than the alternatives to start researching and tweaking the processes of obtaining that energy, it will be quite a while before we can use the alternatives. mass chaos will likely ensue with much hair-pulling and lamentation about why we didn't do something sooner!

Which is why we should use them while we got them. Other countries are going to be using them up like crazy. We should also invest into alternate resources. Frankly I don't give a flying you know what about the environment, but I do care about the cost of my energy bill. Alternate energy sources and increased supply of fossil fuels could drastically decrease both that and our dependence on foreign oil. We should be more focused more on energy independence more than our impact on global warming.

The US has a huge supply of fossil fuels which we could use if we could get to them. ANWAR, the Gulf, the midwest all have large supplies.

Right now, the cost in both money and jobs for alternative fuels is not conducive to use.

As technology advances, then perhaps the cost will go down. But giving money to favored peoples when a year later their company goes belly up does not help the current situation.

However, I do love articles like this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Seems only if you agree with the liberal agenda you are intelligent. To question their set principles makes you "dumb", "vile" or even "racist".

So sayith the 100M$ carbon man Al Gore.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/08/29/al-gore-climate-change-deniers-are-this-generations-racists/

yes, from a right website, but the interview is there.

the cost will continue to go down as we invest in alternate energy technology, there is really no scenario where you can say the same thing in regards to oil.

the only question in my mind is do we want to be ahead of the game or buying from someone else as we do now?

We do not need to be buying from someone else.

If we could only get to our own reserves. ANWAR, the gulf, underground natural gas.

Hell, even a pipeline to Canada is being fought by this admininstration, which would create jobs and decrease our dependance on mideastern oil.

those will run out very quickly and while we are drilling there and sucking it dry other countries will jump ahead in alternate energy which we will then end up buying from them since we have failed to invest in those technologies ourselves.

So far, every country that has tried alternative energy has found it to be a money pit and a job pit.

Just look at what is happening in Spain. At least 2.2 jobs lost for every 1 created in the alternative energy field.

How much longer are we going to throw money we do not have into this money pit?

Just look at the Chevy Volt. Supposed to be the new greatest thing in the automotive industry. They have sold in the hundreds, not thousands. And most buyers are the big corporations that are trying to get in good with Government Motors.

do you not agree that our oil supply is finite?

Dude, we have to do both, it's irresponsible to think otherwise. We need to both get fossil fuels independently, and invest into research for future replacements so we're not behind the curve. We should be using nuclear power... but, I don't want to go off on that tangent.

Of course, however, we are in no immediate or even near term damage of running out.

The Mid-East still has millions of barrels untapped. We have millions of barrels untapped here. Just that we are prevented from getting it.

But as technology progresses, alternative energy will be cheaper. Right now, it is too expensive to throw money at. Especially when companies are going broke after their stimulus money runs out.

without some investment in it this won't happen especially with cuts to scientific research funding.

Right now, it is a very poor time to invest in this field. Once we manage to get out of this financial crisis, we could then invest.

It's easy to say you don't care about the environment Titan if you don't live in an area affected by drastic man-made changes to it. Get some compassion dude. Try living in one of the third-world countries who's air-quality has hit the skids, and now kids and adults are breathing in toxins and getting lung cancer in their twenties. But it's okay, you can just ignore that, because it's "not in your backyard".

Ranger, I have no idea why you oppose alternative energy, do you also oppose hybrid battery/fossil fuel research? Thinking short term when you can afford to think long-term just seems short sighted. I'm glad there are enough people who don't think like that to enact some meaningful legislation to encourage alternative energy research. It's not like the day fossil fuels run out we can just magically develop super-solar cells or some other energy source with the same level of energy output as fossil fuels.

Fex, all discussion I have about policies has a direct relation to the United States. I do not even consider things like that because:

1) We can't control it
2) That would never happen here

When I say I don't care about the environment, I don't mean I think it's okay for business to dump insanely large amounts of mercury into rivers. The US needs to prioritize energy independence over trying to compete in a carbon output race. We need to lift restrictions on a lot of drilling areas, especially some secluded and off shore areas. We need to increase the amount of nuclear plants in the US. These are the things I'm talking about Fex. I didn't think you'd see me as so obtuse Fex.

I just can't get the move towards offshore drilling... the current gulf of Mexico situation is back to leaking and you're ready to give it another go?

The main failure of the gulf, leading to the spill was NOT poor regualation. Rather it was inadequate enforcement of the regualations we had on the books. The lax security and enforcement.

Contrary to what you believe, I do not think we should have NO regulations. We need to have meaningful regulations designed to even the playing field. But not to ensure an even outcome. The outcome should be determined by other factors other than the government.

But as far as drilling in the gulf, if the current regulations would have been enforced properly, the gulf spill would not have occurred. If we open the gulf to drilling, with proper enforcement, I hzve zero problem.

But there are other areas we could be drilling. ANWAR, the east and west coasts. We could be fracking our natural gas reserves.

Once we get out of this horrible recession, and possibly a soon to be depression, we can then throw money at R&D for alternative energy.

But right now, all that "investment" is taking good paying jobs from the oil and gas industry and spending money we do not have.

When the agency responsible for regulation is populated with former industry folks...

who now work for the government, and are on the government payroll, and are subject to government oversight....

I didn't think you were obtuse Titan, I just saw that "I frankly don't care about the environment" statement, and I immediately thought, well that's exactly the kind of thinking that has ruined ecosystems, and is the reason why we have superfund sites in every state in the US. The thing is, I think it's totally possible for businesses to rake in super-profits and be mega-rich while at the same time being environmentally friendly and trying to work within the Earth's already established ecosystem to harness energy for our own needs. I just think some businesses aren't willing to take the risk, or are too lazy to think different when it comes to energy consumption.

there will always be a good reason not to invest, especially in regards to scientific research as you never really know where the big pay-off is going to be.

i have felt for many years that the main problem in our country is too much short-term vision and not enough long-term planning. you see it in our finance system with dividends as opposed to long-term investment. you see it in our political system in that politician's focus too much on getting re-elected or gaining a majority rather than what is best for our country in the long run.

you also see it on an individual basis with people failing to put away for retirement. i have no idea how this could be remedied, but until we do you will see more of a reactionary decisions than proactive ones.

Ranger, you spun the issue to political right realms too quickly. Stop that.
Titan, smog may only be limited to the LA areas, but you are breathing a nano fraction of that air quality with every breathe. Think about that for a second and don't complain about your meager electric bill on the internet again, it's awkward.

I'll second dude's hate for short sighted business deals. Looking at quarter profits and generally ignoring estimates for a decade are infuriating.

Let me put "green" energy in perspective here for a moment and make a point or two on how short sighted we choose to be on the subject.

It costs more compared to what exactly? A coal plant we'll go with that. Say the intial payments for a fleet giant windmills and a coal fire plant are the same, but the fans' output is only 11% or less of what the coal plant generates in power for any given week. This clearly lacks projections of time and consumption. Coal plants takes in coal, parts, thousands of workers, millions of man hours, payroll, thousands of MPG getting to and from work, produces trains of waste, and smells kind of funny. Those fans take up a lot of foreclosed farmland and need only one guy in a truck for when poo hits them. Doesn't need a huge hourly staff. Doesn't need monthly EPA visits. Doesn't need to consume finite resources. Been the easiest way to generate power for a millenium. When you stop thinking in quarterly earnings then jump to 20 year earnings it's not a wasted investment and you look like a saint. Could argue coal gives more jobs, could argue the numbers game, and I coule argue coal kills as it pays, but let's move on....

That's as far as any payer cares to think and it's disappointing. This was America once, that hick country that took what it could and made it better. What if those towering windmills did more? How about served as cell phone and wifi transmitters. Barometers. Water towers. Doubled as geothermal. Giant mist sprinklers. Pump oil or natural gas on the side. Geiger counters for those still afraid of japanese fallout. A tool for SETI. Missle defense system. Lookouts on the borders both land and ocean. Food silo. Take two of those listed and plant something in Iraq before more soldiers are ordered back. etc. Point being as we can only see the cost and quarterly we lost track of potential gain. Adding to that note, here in Texas we had to fall back on old power plants to get the energy needed to combat this heat wave. Money sink investments don't seem so bad when brown outs are involved.

Since i did not believe the actual link, i when straight to look at cern press release.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR15.11E.html

????

Seriously?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States#Environmental_and_health_effects

It's already been banned in Australia, Canada, France, and South Africa......

how do you get no man made global warming from that?

http://www.hydroquebec.com/publications/en/others/pdf/depliant_eolienne_distribution.pdf

For both project cost 8 and 10 cent per KW/H. Wich is less that gaz or oil. ITs does not beat coal, but at those price your electricity bill would not change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

wind cost less that oil and coal..... oh noooon hide this my exxon stock will crash...

After looking at some total cost of coal powerplant our windmill farm beat there price by a good margin.

I'm all for wind, nuclear, and anything else that is promising to get of off both of our dependency of foreign fuel sources, and fossil fuels. Not because I think the slight difference it would make in carbon output would make a huge difference, but because it would greatly help out Americans, and America. ( Or your if you aren't so lucky :P )

I say we need to get anti-matter energy going :).

Even Bill O'Reilly said, "A cleaner planet is better for everyone."

Was he referring to using chain gangs to pick up roadside trash?

U.S. oil consumption is approximately 21,000,000 barrels per day .... thus that "millions untapped" had better be billions upon billions, at 21 per day.

Eleven new coal plants totaling 6,682 MW were commissioned in the U.S. in 2010; the most in 25 years. Finite and filthy, unless you believe those lovely commercials with the former daytime soap (and toothpaste commercial) star, enunciating her "clean" with a toothsome and reassuring smile.


Isn't the idea that we invest our way out of the recession? Aren't we supposed to believe that if all the people who don't wish to pay taxes kept all their money, they would "invest" it and drag us kicking-and-screaming into a recession-free future? Where we would all have high-paying jobs blowing at wind-turbines for $0.02 per exhalation?


Even with whom exactly? Go ahead, say you meant China.


But they weren't and it did, so that tells us something about the dangers to ANWAR and both coasts, given that previous behavior is the single best predictor of future behavior.

This argument, incidentally, ignores that if corporations could be responsible without regulation and enforcement, we wouldn't be wasting government money on that & you could have an even bigger tax break. Which you would, of course, invest in clean & renewable energy alternatives because out of the social responsibility, long-term future-mindedness, and the goodness of your heart, you would pass up oil company quarterlies for the 50 year ROI.

Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

535M in loans gone. Solar and wind power just are not cost effective at this time. No matter how much money the government wants to throw at it.


Yes, private business investing. Not the government borrowing money to "invest" in those field that are big democratic donors. People would invest their private money if the government would stop being as anti-business, anti-success as any I can ever remember. All the chat of spreading the wealth around, increasing taxes, increasing regulation, another huge unpaid entitlement make private business scared to put money into America. Combine that with the highest, or 2nd highest corporate tax rate in America and job/capital easily go and stay overseas.


Sad to say it is a global economy and one has to be able to compete with the world for jobs that could easily be sent overseas. This does not mean child labor, but tax rates that are not the highest in the world for corporations. Incentives to keep jobs in America. No threats of increased taxes to "spread the wealth around" and "make the rich evil billionaires and millionaires pay more". No new financial regulations that Congress passed that are less than 1/2 written. No new Obamacare that even the people who passed it have little idea about what is in it. More certainly about the future, less demonization of success.


So let us punish everyone due to the government not doing their job properly? Let us let gas prices rise to 5, 6 or 7 dollars a gallon?

Previous behaviour should make us learn and adapt, not run scared of our own shadow. ANWAR is land based, the most easily controlled of all the possible oil spills.


Well they are not 100% responsible which is why they need regulation. The fallacy of the left is that the right wants zero regulation. Again and again I read/hear this. Which is nothing near the truth. Overregulation, overtaxation is bad. I would have thought that was obvious to someone as informed as you Bast.

But right now we cannot spend billions of dollars on companies that continue to lose money and go bankrupt. For this unobtainable idea of green energy right now.


Yes I meant Billions.


Yes, but perhaps not contributing to the overhyped ideal of global warming. But still very essential for our modern societies function.

Investing in greener technology will help the US Military right now. If the US Military had more efficient engines, and more options when it came to fueling their vehicles, they wouldn't have to escort huge piles of fuel across dangerous battlefields in order to power their equipment. The US Military knows this too, and thus they are investing in green tech research. It means less lives lost. I don't think even you Ranger could argue that is a bad idea. I think if US Companies could help the military research in green tech we would be in an even better place.

God yes fex. Fuel was such a hassle over there. It ends up costing around $1500 per gallon. The green tech is a much smarter investment when it gets absurd like that to use fuel.

On another note, good luck competing with the <$200 a month workers. And they aren't even worth it for companies in lieu of machines.

Without a doubt Veri,

However the technology is no where near what is needed for the scale the army needs.

Please tell me how 535M in no-risk loans to a solar company will help the army. Loans that it appears will not get paid back.

Would it not be better for the military to be able to get our own oil and natural gas that are on our own soil instead of having to depend on foreign countries to sell us theirs?

It would be even better if we could all use Mr. Fusion from the Back to the Future movies. However, that technology for a mass scale is years away. Should be throw money at companies to do research on that?

As much as I understand your point about energy independance, I am also a realist. I realize that the technology is not there and is years away. Giving government money on this green energy, save the planet fantasy is just Obama's payback to his base.

If we do want R&D, let the miliary do it, like they do with weapon systems. Or subcontract it out. But loans to private companies that it appears go belly up? C'mon now.

There are certainly ways to compete with China. Lower capital gaines, lower corporate taxes. No penalty for corporations who bring money back to the US, for which they are taxed right now.

Higher tariffs. Calling out China on its currency manipulation.

Plenty of ways to compete.

explain to me how it will ever become cheaper or more feasible without r&d?

It will not, but giving money to private companies without ties to the military (after all was that not the reason just used for green energy) is as proven with Solyndra a waste of money.

But then again, should we have put money into plamsa cell research right now? It may be the wave of the future, but the current technology is miles away. The same with green energy. It is miles away from being cost effective. Half a Billion dollars was just wasted, on top of all the other stimulus money given for green energy of which quite a few other companies have folded.

And please do not get me started on the "high" speed rail boondoggle.

Are you against nuclear power as a green energy source?

The reactors in Japan were IIRC 1st generational. The newer ones are light years safer.

how do you propose we tell when the "right" time is to invest in r&d?

as stated earlier, if we look only at the short term, then another country will develop the magic bullet and we will be paying them just like we do now with most of our crude oil.

i am all for nuclear energy. even in texas, we have quite a bit of land that is only used for wind farms now! ; )

I'm confused... the military is the Government yet I thought you said the government shouldn't be doing this sort of thing.. that this was the for the private sector?

Given that the US currently holds 2% of proven oil reserves in the world yet churns through 22% of the world's daily consumption I'd think there would be a very serious interest in alternative fuels in the country.

As for the original subject...

Well, let's see:
We know burning fossil fuels produces pollution... and that pollution is bad (caveat: if we feel that wearing a mask in Mexico City is purely fashion related this could be wrong)

So maybe it isn't the major cause of global warming... so what?

Someone comes along and says 'Oh cosmic rays will cause an ice-age, let's all burn fuel' and that's all we need to let ourselves off the hook?

Just because my body will inevitably stop working doesn't mean I don't have to take care of it.

File the environment with the National Debt, childhood poverty, and a decaying educations system under things we don't have to worry about, they are tomorrow's problem.

If another country wants to spend tons of money into R&D for solar or wind energy let them!!!

Then we can do what other countries have done to us, let that tech seep down to us so we do not have to be the ones spending money. Or shall I say throwing away money like with Solyndra.


Right now we are in a serious recession and there is a thread of another depression. When the economy is growing again, then would be a better time to invest in research and development. However, we should do it better than giving money away to private companies that fold in less than 2 years.. Money of which we will see no return on investment.

After every recession, up to now, there has been a very good recovery. In the 1980s with Reagan, the recovery was spectacular. 7+% growth to GDP compared to 1% now. If we can get the right policies in place, and we cvould have a good recovery, and then spend on the future.

We can easily open up our own stores of oil/gas and break free from the mid-eastern monopoly of oil. Would that not be a good start on the road to energy independance?

But some people think it is better to have billions of barrels come via ship (which can have accidents and spills) or shut down entire regions like the gulf (due to government malpractice), rather than actually get our own resources.

nuclear power for the win. Too bad for price floors cuz its dirt cheap

we cannot ever be independent with oil, we simply use too much and have too little. at least now we do have some we could get to if the ones that have the most cut us off entirely.

what happens if we use all of that though? from a security standpoint do we want to be totally dependent or partially dependent?

focusing on the short term is the problem here, not the solution. r&d is not optional!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/31/us-usa-economy-idUSTRE77U25D20110831?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Way to twist my words. The military is about the only thing Government does well. Yes there is abuse and waste, but generally the military in my view is good.

If we are using government money, the R&D should stay with the government. Not go to a private company like Solyndra that can fold up after a year or 2 and lose everything.

If a private company wants to do R&D like drug companies do, great, it is their money. Not mine and not yours we were forced to hand the government as honest taxpayers.


Yes polution is bad. Causes asthma and other health problems. But it is not the global emergancy that is propagated on the MSM. Until we have clean energy that is cost effective, unfortunately, the world is a gas/oil based economy and we need to grow to get more tech advanced to someday have green/clean energy as a cost effective solution. Until then? We have to get our independance by getting our own resources.


While the US has 2 of the PROVEN oil reserves, we have billions of barrels of unproven reserves. Unproven reserves are those resources that we know are there but are unable to get to due to regulation or technology limitations. ANWAR is classified as an unproven reserve due to the regulations preventing us from tapping it.

We do have great interest in alternative fuels, but the cost right now are too high.


Yet another absolute from the left. Of course the national debt is a big immediate problem, duh. Poverty is also. The decaying education system can be fixed if not for the teachers union styming meaningful changes every step they can. And my wife is a teacher, or used to be until she found out what the NEA was really about.

it is anwr, not anwar btw. here are the best guesses of the estimates which have been revamped since the 90's estimates as better and more info was gathered:

The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day (124,000 m3/d) in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day (113,000 m3/d) in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day (231,000 m3/d), respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels (410,000,000 m3) for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m3), respectively.[24] In 2007, the United States consumed 20.68 m bbls of petroleum products per day. It produced roughly 5 million barrels per day (790,000 m3/d) of crude oil, and imported 10 million barrels per day (1,600,000 m3/d) of crude and 3.5 million barrels per day (560,000 m3/d) of petroleum products.

hardly enough there to ensure independence.

No. Not independence. But a nice start. And very barrel we get ther means less imported from the Mideast.

Combine that with the gulf and you get more oil and with it a lot of high paying jobs. Making a recovery easier.

So, why don't we do that, build nuclear power plants, place wind turbines where they'll actually do good, and put a small bit into R&D right now. Upping R&D more as the economy returns and as we see a return on nuclear, wind power, and the new oil?

so use up the last of our reserves forcing total dependence all the sooner instead of investing in finding alternatives that will gain us independence?

You realize the less we spend on foreign oil now, the more we can put towards R&D? We know that nuclear power is a partial solution, and quite a good one. I don't see why you wouldn't pour some money into. It already accounts for 10% of our country's output.

Wasn't trying to twist your words, just trying to reconcile watching you repeatedly rail against tax dollars being used in this way and then suggest the military should do it.
It seemed contradictory so I was curious...

As for 'getting at our oil reserves'... I don't know that ANWR helps all that much as it would take you from 2% of the world's proven reserves to 3%...
Plan the parade!

As for the education/environment/debt comment:
I was being facetious, however in each of those cases can be likened to not paying off your credit card. The damage is cumulative and the sooner you start addressing the problems the lower the bill will be in the end.

i am all for nuclear, stated it above.

as for the other question, that is also a very short-sighted solution. in the short term we could save a few bucks off of the barrel price but run out and be entirely dependent on other countries in the long-term.

what motivation will they have to keep their prices down then? will it cost us more in the long-term to be totally dependent on other's oil?

the best solution is getting us to be totally independent as soon as possible.

Is Obama against Nuclear power? I can't recall. I thought he was, I know one of the front runners last election was, don't remember who though.

it has mainly been the public that is against nuclear as no one wants the plants or especially the required waste dumps in their backyard.

I'm sure you could find places to put the plants. We already have 100+ working units in the US. I find it funny that both of the Reps want nuclear power. I bet if a poll was taken, the US public would be drastically in favor of it. You can put one in my back yard. As long as you leave me my *actual* backyard. They're safe to pretty much everything, but really good terrorist attacks, and who would execute a terrorist attack in MO... they might kill some corn.

Yes, Obama is for nuclear power. However the Japan situation has setback nuclear power back years.

This is one area where I agree with our president.

That we should or shouldn't be building nuclear power plants?

We certainly should.

The meltdowns in Japan were with a much older plant, and the backup plans they had would not be effected by H2O if they were put anywhere away from the coast.

Ok, thought that's what you meant. I'm not feeling super and everything's a little foggy :P

Nuclear is proven energy. Relatively clean and relatively free of spills.

We have learned from our past mistakes. Hopefully they will not scare us off of a possible beneficialy green energy source.

But other methods, such as solar or wind energy are just too damm expensive to use now. And the current method of R&D, small private companies backed by the government is just a waste of money. Or maybe just a political payback for election support?

My 2 cents. Oil, coal and nuclear (fission) all are resource dependent. Even nuclear has about 300 years of resources left unless they can get breeder reactors working. Solar and wind energy are both efficiency and space constrained.

The real energy solution will be getting fusion working, more efficient cracking of water or antimatter.