80 by 50

[piece-itpete]

Mike, I see he could have a stake in it but that is one damning link.

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by MikeCh

Here is the writing that inspired my original post.
http://http://www.questar.com/1OurCo.../UVUSpeech.pdf

Seems to be a busted link.

I'm not saying we should do NOTHING, I'm simply asking how in the
heck can anything meaningful be accomplished given our track record + expanding population + many countries coming online with their own "me generation" + global economies what they are + (insert problem here)....etc.

Nobody said it would be easy, only that it's essential to our survival.

John

[piece-itpete]

“World coming to an end – details at 11” lmao!!

http://www.questar.com/1OurCompany/n.../UVUSpeech.pdf

Pete

[MikeCh]

fixed it

[Boreas]

[QUOTE=MikeCh;11457]Here is the writing that inspired my original post.
http://www.questar.com/1OurCompany/n.../UVUSpeech.pdf/QUOTE]

I got about half way through and couldn't stand it any more. I'll give it another go. I promise.

Seriously though, how can you take what he says seriously? He's the CEO of an energy company which sells natural gas. He says "buy my product" because it's only 70% to 50% as bad as oil.

Then he says that science is wrong about global warming. Why? Because 30 years ago they were wrong about global cooling. Right. Wrong once, wrong forever.

Then he says that because 1998 was the warmest year on record global warming has somehow "peaked". I guess the fact that this year is on track to be only the 9th warmest year on record means we're in a virtual ice age now.

More fundamental to his agenda, he's presenting the whole "80 by 50" thing as if it's some sort of mandate and we'll all have to do it. "80 by 50" is just the conclusion of one report written by the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, Norway. Other reports list a much lower figure, only as high as 60%. No government anywhere has adopted any of these recommended targets.

Also, Cap & Trade, or Emissions Trading, works. It's being used for CO2 in Europe, on a country by country (as opposed to EU) basis. It's also how we got a handle on acid rain right here in the good old US of A.

I'll get back to you when I finish this guy's speech but I think you get where I'm coming from.

John

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Then he says that science is wrong about global warming. Why? Because 30 years ago they were wrong about global cooling. Right. Wrong once, wrong forever.

They weren't wrong. The whole "global cooling" deal is bull shit.

http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/?p=2421

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

They weren't wrong. The whole "global cooling" deal is bull shit.

http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/?p=2421

Yes, and all this points to the inadequacy of the term "global warming". There is the virtual certainty that a general warming trend will actually result in localized or regional cooling. This will happen when all that polar ice melt ends up in the oceans and lowers the water temperature. That in turn shuts down things like the Gulf Stream which is responsible for the temperate climate enjoyed by Europe. (There are palm trees in Britain at the latitude of Newfoundland.)

What we're looking at is total climate disruption. Wet areas become deserts. Hot areas become hotter. Temperate areas become hot - or cold - depending.

It's gonna be a mess, guys!

John

[Charles]

Originally Posted by MikeCh

Here is the writing that inspired my original post.
http://www.questar.com/1OurCompany/n.../UVUSpeech.pdf

I'm not saying we should do NOTHING, I'm simply asking how in the heck can anything meaningful be accomplished given our track record + expanding population + many countries coming online with their own "me generation" + global economies what they are + (insert problem here)....etc.

Well, I kind of breezed through the link, and came to the conclusion that the author's basic premise was "Let's be realistic, folks."

We are going to need more energy, and it would be best to address the issue rather than sticking our heads in the sand. And what will work is to use existing methods which are proven to provide energy. The "green" sources are not cost effective or reliable at this time.

While cliche, the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones, and the carbon age won't end because we've run out of carbon sources. Something will come along. And, for the record, I'm in favor of "green" energy, it just has to be effective, affordable, and plentiful.

And, for the record, I'm skeptical of the severity of the current "climate change" mantra I find myself bombarded with. And I'm also of the opinion that cap and trade is nothing more than a tax which will benefit the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. Aren't times hard enough?

Chas

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by Charles

And, for the record, I'm skeptical of the severity of the current "climate change" mantra I find myself bombarded with. And I'm also of the opinion that cap and trade is nothing more than a tax which will benefit the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. Aren't times hard enough?

Chas

Yep, a sales tax (which this amounts to) will hit the poor the worst. I just saw yesterday that electric bills in Germany went up 20% and gas is $8 a gallon. It will also benefit the government, follow the money.

Want to hear some *hit? The climate change 'experts' 1) don't know what is really happening. 2) can't make their models work backwards (that would be some proof of accuracy, at least a shred of indication). 3) don't know what will happen with any given change in CO2 output (so how much will this billion and billion dollar 'help' be worth? NOBODY KNOWS).

So, instead of spending those billions & billions directly developing alternate technology, or feeding the poor (how about health care?), or preparing contingency plans and infrastructure, we are giving it to the government. Or should I say, the government is taking it.

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Charles

And, for the record, I'm skeptical of the severity of the current "climate change" mantra I find myself bombarded with.

Shocking. And you base this on your years of study in the field.

Those climate scientists don't know any more than you or I. Just like those doctors don't know anything. Cigarettes will kill you. Pft. Where's the proof? Just as tenuous as the link between carbon and warming.

See, it's that book learnin' that gets us in trouble. We should just stop educating kids alltogether. Keep those fancy ideas out of their heads. How we gonna keep them on the farm...