Pickens Plans On Wind Power

So he puts his mouth where your money is?

All Al Gore is doing is trying to raise awareness regarding Global Warming.

I think he's succeeding because the conversation has changed from "there is no global warming" to "global warming is a nature phenomenon".

Hopefully in five to ten more years, when its clear that it isn't a natural phenomenon but a problem caused by man-made carbon emissions to people such as yourself, we can move the conversation to the "Politicians lied to us, we were victims in all this" stage where you conveniently forget that people were telling you about global warming for 40 years but you in your supreme intelligence decided that scientists who have spent decades studying the subject were no match for your "common sense".

I guess thats why the G-8 countries have basically validated the US position on Kyoto at their last summit.

Heres an excerpt:

Which is to say, he has forced the world to pay at least some attention to reality.

That was the larger meaning of the Group of Eight summit in Japan this week, even if it didn't make the papers. The headline was that the nations pledged to cut global greenhouse emissions by half by 2050. Yet for the first time, the G-8 also agreed that any meaningful climate program would have to involve industrializing nations like China and India. For the first time, too, the G-8 agreed that real progress will depend on technological advancements. And it agreed that the putative benefits had to justify any brakes on economic growth.

In other words, the G-8 signed on to what has been the White House approach since 2002. The U.S. has relied on the arc of domestic energy programs now in place, like fuel-economy standards and efficiency regulations, along with billions in subsidies for low-carbon technology. Europe threw in with the central planning of the Kyoto Protocol -- and the contrast is instructive. Between 2000 and 2006, U.S. net greenhouse gas emissions fell 3%. Of the 17 largest world-wide emitters, only France reduced by more.

So despite environmentalist sanctimony about the urgent need for President Bush and the U.S. to "take the lead" on global warming, his program has done better than most everybody else's.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121573566257544347.html

No need to give grudging credit where credit is due, Saint aAl has already taken the credit.I hardly think that saint al is not at all profiting on his whipping up of much celebrated hysteria.

If only there were a forty year consensus on the subject by scientists with models that can be vetted openly.

Alas, tis not so. Thus the disagreement by reasonable folks like all of us .

Peace.

milo"kinda disturbed that the french did do a bit better at carbon reduction than US"

Nah, the Bush administration just finally convinced the rest of 'em on the benefits of greed, that's all.

Since a large percentage of carbon emissions come from us and we are also a huge economy and we are unwilling to acquiesce to the rest of the world, the rest of the world is forced to comply with our standards else risk recession. Everyone is reduced to the weakest link on this issue (The U.S.).

Your problem is you somehow believe that climate can change on a dime. The time scale for climatic shifts are 1000s of years, not decades. So you spout off about "tipping points" and point out that once a long time ago there were dinosaurs on antarctica. You don't have a sense of scale milo, and that's why you who I'm sure is an intelligent person otherwise, is utterly wrong on this issue. The problem is your misunderstandings and misconceptions are going to cost me money in the long run, and I resent that.

"we are unwilling to acquiesce to the rest of the world, the rest of the world is forced to comply with our standards else risk recession. Everyone is reduced to the weakest link on this issue (The U.S.)."

Well thats one interpretation. Or they could have seen that they were being sold a bill of goods that would have crippled their economies... while the developing economies rendered both their economic and environmental sacrifices moot...

"you somehow believe that climate can change on a dime. The time scale for climatic shifts are 1000s of years, not decades."

I agree climate can't turn on a dime, but it is not my position that somehow it can turn in 20 years of combustion, (a geological dime by my reckoning) and it must be the combustion, ignore any and all possible correlates?

Scale works both ways.

I believe that I do have a sense of scale, and that is why i think that using twenty years of good data (A mere point over the time span and errors involved) to determine the slope of a variable curve over "1000's of years" is folly.

My professors would have had little patience for me had I tried such shenanigans when I was a lad...

I can concede that my misunderstandings and misconceptions May cost you something over the long run, that is possible, but cannot be proved; Your leap of faith that the climate is failing solely due to anthropogenic means is certain to cost me in the short run, and that is fairly easy to establish. Given the time value of money, well, I'm more likely to be damaged by mistaken judgemnet from your position than you are from mine.

I guess I should blame the WSJ for the data error, but instead, I'll take responsibility for using a reputable source. Mea culpa.

But I don't resent your right to make your best choices from the data that you have.

I'm sorry that you resent my right to make a similar independent conclusion from my reading of the data.

You make a good case, but are ill served by choice of verbs such as "spout off" and resent. Passion is an important part of critical thinking, but negative thinking can derail the most cogent thoughts and analysis.

peace. milo

You Write: "You make a good case, but are ill served by choice of verbs such as "spout off" and resent. Passion is an important part of critical thinking, but negative thinking can derail the most cogent thoughts and analysis."

I don't know what to tell you man. I'm not gonna hold your hand and pretend like your opinion on this subject matters. There is no scientific debate on global warming and I'm not going to sugar coat it for you. You need to get it together and realize this is real.

"I don't know what to tell you man. I'm not gonna hold your hand and pretend like your opinion on this subject matters."

Dittoes

peace.

milo

Milo,

You Wrote: "Between 2000 and 2006, U.S. net greenhouse gas emissions fell 3%. Of the 17 largest world-wide emitters, only France reduced by more."

This is completely and utterly untrue. Here are the Emissions of Greenhouse gases from 2000 and 2006. All values are in terms of millions of metric tons.

Carbon Dioxide - 5890.5 (2000)............5934.4 (2006) (0.75% increase)
Methane - 608.0 (2000)..................605.1 (2006) (0.47% decrease)
Nitrous Oxide - 341.9 (2000)................378.6 (2006) (10.7% increase)
High GWP Gases - 138 (2000)..................157.6 (2006) (14% increase)
Total - 6978 (2000)..........................7,075.6 (2006) (1.4% increase)

This data is available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/

I read the same Wall Street Journal article you did so I know where you got the 3% statistic, but the writer was wrong, as you can see from the statistics given above. I believe the writer meant that the U.S. contribution to Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions had dropped 3% which is due to China and India's explosive economic growth and corresponding growth in emissions. In essence Milo, your basically trumpeting the fact that we're not as bad as China. Meanwhile China's smog is so thick they have to seed it to force it to rain to try to get clear skys during the olympics.

You see Milo, its things like this, little facts you get completely wrong that leads you to your confident assertions that everything is fine. Meanwhile there is a northwest passage now and russians are evacuated from arctic monitoring stations months early and record temperatures and heat waves, record droughts, record floods, and on and on and on and you don't hear any of it. So in 10 years, when its obvious, even to you, what then? Then I'm supposed to pay all this tax money to start fixing a problem we could have addressed 20 years earlier except Milo didn't believe. I think you should have to pay, not me.

I read the same Wall Street Journal article you did so I know where you got the 3% statistic, but the writer was wrong,

Should jump on the WSJ's writer also.

Allot of material to sift through to see, find and verify the accuracy, that includes all sources especially ones that can be political topics such as global warming.

I generally expect writers to screw up, so I check their statistics or read the actual paper their quoting. When you take these actions you find that the supposed "debate" on global warming doesn't exist.

I've stated many times that the kyoto agreement was worthless, I'm with you guys on that. I just wish you guys would wake up to the fact that there is no doubt that global warming is caused primarily by man. If we can't agree there is a problem, we'll never agree on a solution and so the problem gets worse and worse while you guys crack Al Gore jokes. It's lame, your basically making fun of the guy telling you your house is on fire, even as the embers fall around you.

One has to separate Al Gore and Global Warming Those are two very different topics. At lease to me it is.

Trying to address Global Warming without tying Al Gore in with it take away the seriousness of the issue.

Why?

When I try to get information on global warming as in pro GW and con GW.

Pro GW would bring up Al Gores name as though since he's for it, every one else should be also.

I try to separate and get information, whether or not he wrote a book on GW, I try to get information and come to my own conclusions,

Because it seems that people stump for Al Gore politically, I could care less, and have to page through the rhetoric.

i.e. When a politician and Al is a true blue politician, I see it as an agenda by him. (And an Agenda as in for personal gain ) I see this in any politician who has a cause.

And when I try to separate Al Gore and GW, and I have had, these discussion with you Roger, Al Gore comes up, which I rather not discuss.

Are there GW issues. yes,

is the the Ozone Depleting, Yes,

are there trends, Yes

Are there (with a lack of a better word,) hiccups in these trends, yes

I'll take scientific data, from a reliable source more from information from Al Gore.

The problem that I have is wading, through the data and this data is coming from both sides and determining the actual situation, which is hard.

Yeah, but we aren't the ones who always bring him up. It's you guys cracking some joke about him, as if he's done something wrong. All he's done is try to raise awareness regarding global warming since the 80s, and now that it turns out he's been right all along you guys conveniently forget the "green" attacks on him from 1992 and say he's doing this for some political agenda, despite the fact he isn't in office. Makes no sense.

Your twisting things around, I did say he is a politician, I said he has an agenda for personal gain, I never said he has a Political Agenda.

what is that agenda? global warming,,,,, what I have seen from Al is more like greed, on the guise of global warming.

No worries, Rog, we'll ALL be paying by then...

I hear ya. I have to get into one of these debates every few weeks to remind myself that I shouldn't.

Ever notice how it's OK to disrespect Al Gore, but if anyone says something about Dubya being in Big Oil's hip pocket tears flow like rain? Personally, I haven't much use for either of 'em, but neither of 'em have a place in civilized discussion...

Yes, what I've noticed is they want to play by one set of rules and want us to play by another. I think the problem is that for too long we've been trying to reason with fanatics and the uneducated in this country. It's a waste of time.

"Now this 11-year low in Sunspot activity has raised fears among a small but growing number of scientists that rather than getting warmer, the Earth could possibly be about to return to another cooling period. The idea is especially intriguing considering that most of the world is in preparation for global warming."

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-sunspot-mys.html

Sunspot activity causing climate change. Now there is a unique concept that I had forgotten "people were telling me about". If it cools down can we say man is not making enough carbon emissions?

Thoughtful oranguatan!

No, the purveyors of doom will be unrepentant.

The planet's biosphere is not now and never has been steady state.

We need to tread lightly, but we need to do so consistent with need for quality of life for all our kin.

I hopetha those windgenerators graphite fiber will be functional in the cold, I believe that we have lots of wind when its cold around these parts...

milo

My pleasure. I love wordplay. For example, if Genghis Kahn was ruthless, it implies a lack of "ruth". Can you think of an example of someone filled with "ruth"? Perhaps St. Francis of Assisi, or Mother Theresa?

A candy bar named Babe? perhaps

Well, the dictionary definition is: "Compassion or pity for another." What I was getting at is that there are words we use (overwhelm, ruthless) that imply opposites or alternates, but we never (or so seldom as to equal never) use the reverse or alternate meaning. I find these words fascinating and try to revitalize them when I can.

Yep!

It is a great service to help keep these anomalous words alive.

Sorry I wasn't up to "ruth"

milo

No worries, I've plenty of ruth for you...

Here's another good one - respond - implies one is going to "spond" again. Spond is from Latin, meaning to bind oneself with a promise or pledge. So to respond is to do so again.

oh brother.

Roger, and members,

If we are to take every alarmist true believer's claim of some newly revealed scientific facts' " negative environmental impact" seriously, then perhaps in the interest of fairness, the alarmists will also consider scientific based facts provided by non-alarmists that may illuminate the same issue as worthy of discussion as well.

Otherwise it ain't science. And it aint rational discourse.

Either all facts are treated with respect, and held to similar standards of reasonableness, or none are.

It seems to me that on this forum facts that support an alarmist environmental position are held to be unimpeachable, while those of us asking for clarity and questioning methods and ways of knowing (ie modelling a scientific method of inquiry ) and the facts that we bring are treated with derision and scorn.

"Oh brother" is not a sign of an open mind.

If we want rational discourse we should be rational.

Derision is not rational just because the facts are contrary to one's strongly held position.

Open minds are desireable , yes?

Or once we have an idea, we must keep our mind closed?

milo

Relativism is not the same as Reasonableness. If we really entertained every flight of fancy as you suggest, we would never get anything done in the world. You are applying a standard to CR4 that doesn't exist except in your own mind.

Quite simply, not all opinions have equal merit, and to pretend that they do is disingenuous and dangerous. The mechanism by which the Ozone layer is depleted by CFC's has been well established now for a long time. To suggest that there is some sort of conspiracy to suppress the fact that CFC's don't deplete the Ozone layer is a joke. We might as well say that the moon landings never happened or that Elvis is still alive. I'm not interested in quackery.

Furthermore Milo, despite what you may believe, you are not the moral compass of this forum. It is not for you to dictate to me what opinions I am to take seriously and which I will disregard as nonsense.

You use cute terms like "true believers" and "alarmist" and then lecture me on tolerance? C'mon, who are you kidding? You need to stop listening to talk radio and read the scientific journals because, and hear me on this milo, history is not going to look kindly upon your ilk.

"Every flight of fancy" is exactly what is examined by the lense of Science.

When some ideas are held as orthodoxy and others are decried as "inferior or taboo", well, intellectual inquiry suffers.

I don't believe that I claimed to be the moral compass of this forum; I am a guest; And as a guest I try to model and uphold certain standards of discourse.

'Alarmist' seems to me to be fair use as a descriptor when you can dismiss other's claims as 'quackery' and judge which opinions are worthy of merit or not.

This forum provides all of us with an opportunity to explore issues, of concern, but sometimes its difficult to do when particpants pile on the ad hominem cheap shots, and other personalized scolds when ideas that they do not like appear.

Its a free market of ideas, and I'm all for letting them all see the light of day.

Not for censoring them from my or any other particular point of view.

How does one get to be the official spokesperson for history, in the future, BTW?

Milo 'actually, I used to listen to shortwave radio, but then they built the internet'

You Said "Its a free market of ideas, and I'm all for letting them all see the light of day."

Yes, that's the point precisely isn't it? I'm simply not interested in buying the junk your trying to sell. No one has been censored have they? His statement stands, as does mine.

If you could crawl down off you pulpit for a moment you would see here that the issue isn't that I'm trying to censor you, but rather that you are trying to censor me. You try to dictate the way in which I can respond or remark.

"If you could crawl down off you pulpit for a moment ..."

Out of respect for this forum and its members I am going to unsubscribe to this thread.

Continued scoldings and ad hominem attacks are not adding value to the topic... or the CR4 ENGINEERING Forum

Thanks to those of you who responded to me privately.

milo

You Wrote: "Continued scoldings and ad hominem attacks are not adding value to the topic... or the CR4 ENGINEERING Forum"

Yes, I agree, you should stop doing that.

"...How does one get to be the official spokesperson for history..."

Outlive 'em, old chap, works every time!

Interestingly, my university inorganic chemistry professor must have read the same report. He quoted the same information about reforming O^- and Cl^- by UV in the upper atmosphere. This was in '75 when the controversy was still new. But there is a significant difference between oceanic chlorine and CFC chlorine. The CFC's are much more easily carried aloft into the stratosphere, and are themselves fairly stable and stay there a looooong time. This has the potential to skew the equation drastically. And for what it's worth, it took a very looooong time to phase in R-134a, while R12 is still rather plentiful in older cooling systems.

The report (sponsored by DuPont, by the way)

It is all about business, and making a buck.

As far as studies and research, When one can get an inside peak on how the research is assemble. Sometimes it seems that the research is "manufactured" around an answer.

"The point being, we are not knowledgeable enough to say for sure which way we would be tipping anything."

To this I say Amen. I can listen to thoughtful commentary and rational explanation all day long. But there are those who get real hatey if you challenge the whole notion of man made climate change. The hypocritical nature of some of these advocates (and I name Al Gore as the poster boy for hypocrisy) turns the discussion to a political agenda or worse.

The discussion of the "potential negative effects of excess carbon in the atmosphere" has morphed into "let's punish succesful free market economies in the name of environmentalism". Al Gore was right when he said "the earth has a fever". However the fever relates to whipping up the populace into a panic with "the sky is falling".

I can hardly wait.