Tim, I have always accepted the anthropogenic part of the global warming. What I was saying was that Gore’s charts were missing the way to measure the human from the natural. Gore used figures that were off and relied on unsound data.
It takes 90,000 years to warm the earth and 10,000 years to put us back into the ice age. The earth is at the top of the cycle. Some say we are over the top of the cycle and we should start cooling. Other say we are still heading to the top of the cycle. This seems to be something the scientist don’t have enough data to agree upon. To me that should be the datum line of the chart I want to see. And it seems to be an item that NASA and the IPCC don’t address. I would think with the ice core samples going back 600,000 years that they would have the Milankovitch cycle figured out to the year. But it is obviously not that simple.
Point being. What year do we change from the positive warming to negative warming? An item we should know before we commit billions and billions to the Green Cat programs.
Greed. Greed has been addressed in religion and history as a problem for mankind. Right now in history the IMF is trying to bring all the countries together to the point they have to rely on each other to survive. Meanwhile the countries resources are being bought by other countries. Just this week China sent troops to Africa to protect its natural resources.
Point being that after we are done with the economic world wars and then the world cyber wars, greed may just be a pipe-dream for the working man. The United States might just turn into nothing more than a big feedlot of people from all over the world.
Until we are beyond the actual threshold of possible globally destructive “economics world wars” and “world cyber wars”, we should take steps to avert them.
Addressing global warming and, at least channeling, if not otherwise addressing, the greed that fuels it, may be a pathway toward averting, or ameliorating, some global calamities.
IF we can change the economy from fossil fuel to predominately renewable energy, AND AT THE SAME TIME, sustain or even improve the flow of money to people in aggregate, that would seem to me, to be a sensible thing to do. (And I think it is quite doable.) And IF the USA takes the lead in doing that, the rest of the world is more likely to come along.
As to the complexity of Climate Change, yes it is extraordinarily complex. We don’t understand it nearly as much as we need to. Heck there may even be a 10 year period during this century when solar activity ebbs to the point that we have a cooling period.
But one thing seems abundantly clear. We have a heck of a lot of carbon, and other greenhouse gases, that we have been putting into, and continue to increasingly put into, the atmosphere. We do not need to understand the complexity of Life, the Universe, and Everything, in order to begin reversing that in common sense ways, i.e., moves to increase energy efficiency, and transition toward a renewable energy economy.
As to the complexity of Climate Change, yes it is extraordinarily complex. We don't understand it nearly as much as we need to. Heck there may even be a 10 year period during this century when solar activity ebbs to the point that we have a cooling period. But one thing seems abundantly clear. We have a heck of a lot of carbon, and other greenhouse gases, that we have been putting into, and continue to increasingly put into, the atmosphere. We do not need to understand the complexity of Life, the Universe, and Everything, in order to begin reversing that in common sense ways, i.e., moves to increase energy efficiency, and transition toward a renewable energy economy.There are 7 billion people on earth and every one is burning something and/or having something burned for him or her. OF COURSE it has to have a detrimental effect on the environment. Global warming seems perfectly natural and rational as the result. It is completely irrational to think it is not. LL
Tim, I got to agree with you.
Remember the snowball paradox, where the earth was a solid ball of ice. Can’t remember, maybe four times in the past. I have read the carbon was 300 time more than today in the atmosphere and it still was not enough to warm the earth. It would have been clear off Gore’s charts. But that was so far back in time we might be comparing apples to oranges. I still have never found an answer on that problem.
Before wind energy and before solar energy there was hydro and coal. We knew we could not build more dams. And the massive coal deposits had not yet been found in Wyoming. The debate was geothermal and nuclear. Nuclear won the battle because we were told it was going to be the cheapest energy mankind has ever known. Try telling that to the people paying for the San Onofre nuclear plant in Southern California.
The first geothermal well drill at the Geysers was in 1902. And it is still just as hot today. There is no carbon footprint with geothermal energy. Why is geothermal not on the table?
Until we are beyond the actual threshold of possible globally destructive "economics world wars" and "world cyber wars", we should take steps to avert them. Addressing global warming and, at least channeling, if not otherwise addressing, the greed that fuels it, may be a pathway toward averting, or ameliorating, some global calamities. IF we can change the economy from fossil fuel to predominately renewable energy, AND AT THE SAME TIME, sustain or even improve the flow of money to people in aggregate, that would seem to me, to be a sensible thing to do. (And I think it is quite doable.) And IF the USA takes the lead in doing that, the rest of the world is more likely to come along.What has the government done to make me trust it to do anything? The government is turning us into a police state and we catch it in lie after lie. No transparency at all. If I can’t trust the government, why would I expect other countries to trust our government? We need to fix the government before we can fix the climate. How do we know by giving the government more power we may be creating an unstoppable bureaucracy? It happened before in Germany.
Here’s an idea from the past. When Rome used up all the firewood that grew in the country, all the way to the Alps. Rome decided to create large bakeries and give free bread to the people. That way the city would not have as many fires burning. What do you think the cost would be if the government supplied free fruit to all the people? Billions of course. Is it possible the saving from health and carbon could offset the cost?
Speaking of the earth... Climate Change, when at it's worst (now) also has the sickness of greed at it's worse too.Be careful talking about greed “green cats" and Climate Change in this forum. I tried to bring that point up and never got pass being called a Climate Change denier. I'm not denying climate change. I'm saying that greed is part of what causes it or rather, if not for greed, we wouldn't have big problems with CO2, corporations polluting, over use of A/Cs, and other things that contribute to Climate Change, which are all related to greed. Greed is at the bottom of it all. I don't disagree, but you have to break it down a little. Greed for what? Greed for a better life for our children? Everyone wants that, but what I don't think anyone in the past expected is that even when life became incredibly luxurious, we would still want more. By luxurious, I mean a warm soft bed, the ability to stay warm but not too warm, food, and options to travel just about anywhere. No one but the elite had all of that until the 20th century. But instead of being happy with it, and wanting others to have it, we keep fighting and keep wanting more. The thing that helped us progress became a disease.
Speaking of the earth... Climate Change, when at it's worst (now) also has the sickness of greed at it's worse too.Be careful talking about greed “green cats" and Climate Change in this forum. I tried to bring that point up and never got pass being called a Climate Change denier. I'm not denying climate change. I'm saying that greed is part of what causes it or rather, if not for greed, we wouldn't have big problems with CO2, corporations polluting, over use of A/Cs, and other things that contribute to Climate Change, which are all related to greed. Greed is at the bottom of it all. I don't disagree, but you have to break it down a little. Greed for what? Greed for a better life for our children? Everyone wants that, but what I don't think anyone in the past expected is that even when life became incredibly luxurious, we would still want more. By luxurious, I mean a warm soft bed, the ability to stay warm but not too warm, food, and options to travel just about anywhere. No one but the elite had all of that until the 20th century. But instead of being happy with it, and wanting others to have it, we keep fighting and keep wanting more. The thing that helped us progress became a disease. I think I mentioned that when I mentioned CO2 emissions. Some of the things that emit CO2 and contribute to Climate Change are oil, coal, and even one's A/C. There are other things, but the greed for financial gain for oil and coal (to name a couple) is part of what is causing Climate Change.
Until we are beyond the actual threshold of possible globally destructive "economics world wars" and "world cyber wars", we should take steps to avert them. Addressing global warming and, at least channeling, if not otherwise addressing, the greed that fuels it, may be a pathway toward averting, or ameliorating, some global calamities. IF we can change the economy from fossil fuel to predominately renewable energy, AND AT THE SAME TIME, sustain or even improve the flow of money to people in aggregate, that would seem to me, to be a sensible thing to do. (And I think it is quite doable.) And IF the USA takes the lead in doing that, the rest of the world is more likely to come along.What has the government done to make me trust it to do anything? The government is turning us into a police state and we catch it in lie after lie. No transparency at all. If I can’t trust the government, why would I expect other countries to trust our government? We need to fix the government before we can fix the climate. How do we know by giving the government more power we may be creating an unstoppable bureaucracy? It happened before in Germany. Trust. Who should we trust absolutely? Probably no one. But just because no one may be deserving of our ABSOLUTE trust, should we, then, conclude that we should never trust anyone with anything? That seems to be what you are doing in regards to your view of "the government". The fact is that we (correctly) do, and (correctly) have, and should trust the government in many many ways, too numerous to go into. And yes, bureaucracies, do bring along their inherent sets of difficulties that must (or should) be continually assessed and addressed. But, it is often, generally, only the government, that has the power to counter the otherwise overwhelming power of those who would exploit others and the world to feed their own insatiable greed.
Here’s an idea from the past. When Rome used up all the firewood that grew in the country, all the way to the Alps. Rome decided to create large bakeries and give free bread to the people. That way the city would not have as many fires burning. What do you think the cost would be if the government supplied free fruit to all the people? Billions of course. Is it possible the saving from health and carbon could offset the cost?I like the way you are thinking here.
Speaking of the earth... Climate Change, when at it's worst (now) also has the sickness of greed at it's worse too.Be careful talking about greed “green cats" and Climate Change in this forum. I tried to bring that point up and never got pass being called a Climate Change denier. I'm not denying climate change. I'm saying that greed is part of what causes it or rather, if not for greed, we wouldn't have big problems with CO2, corporations polluting, over use of A/Cs, and other things that contribute to Climate Change, which are all related to greed. Greed is at the bottom of it all. I don't disagree, but you have to break it down a little. Greed for what? Greed for a better life for our children? Everyone wants that, but what I don't think anyone in the past expected is that even when life became incredibly luxurious, we would still want more. By luxurious, I mean a warm soft bed, the ability to stay warm but not too warm, food, and options to travel just about anywhere. No one but the elite had all of that until the 20th century. But instead of being happy with it, and wanting others to have it, we keep fighting and keep wanting more. The thing that helped us progress became a disease. I think I mentioned that when I mentioned CO2 emissions. Some of the things that emit CO2 and contribute to Climate Change are oil, coal, and even one's A/C. There are other things, but the greed for financial gain for oil and coal (to name a couple) is part of what is causing Climate Change. Hence, how about channeling that greed to accomplish something more functional? How about we punish instead of reward industries that do the most in pumping out toxins and greenhouse gases, and support renewable energy industries that don't (or do so to an extraordinarily lesser degree). How about we support individuals and industries who use energy more efficiently, and give no support to individuals and industries who don't?
Speaking of the earth... Climate Change, when at it's worst (now) also has the sickness of greed at it's worse too.Be careful talking about greed “green cats" and Climate Change in this forum. I tried to bring that point up and never got pass being called a Climate Change denier. I'm not denying climate change. I'm saying that greed is part of what causes it or rather, if not for greed, we wouldn't have big problems with CO2, corporations polluting, over use of A/Cs, and other things that contribute to Climate Change, which are all related to greed. Greed is at the bottom of it all. I don't disagree, but you have to break it down a little. Greed for what? Greed for a better life for our children? Everyone wants that, but what I don't think anyone in the past expected is that even when life became incredibly luxurious, we would still want more. By luxurious, I mean a warm soft bed, the ability to stay warm but not too warm, food, and options to travel just about anywhere. No one but the elite had all of that until the 20th century. But instead of being happy with it, and wanting others to have it, we keep fighting and keep wanting more. The thing that helped us progress became a disease. I think I mentioned that when I mentioned CO2 emissions. Some of the things that emit CO2 and contribute to Climate Change are oil, coal, and even one's A/C. There are other things, but the greed for financial gain for oil and coal (to name a couple) is part of what is causing Climate Change. Hence, how about channeling that greed to accomplish something more functional? How about we punish instead of reward industries that do the most in pumping out toxins and greenhouse gases, and support renewable energy industries that don't (or do so to an extraordinarily lesser degree). How about we support individuals and industries who use energy more efficiently, and give no support to individuals and industries who don't? That was one of my thoughts and it could work.
Wasn’t that what the idea was back in the 1960’s and then again in the 1980’s. Known as cap and trade.
Wasn’t that what the idea was back in the 1960’s and then again in the 1980’s. Known as cap and trade.Cap and trade is one simplistic answer. Not one that is particularly attractive to me. But how about being even more straight forward? How about ending subsidies and tax breaks to industries that produce toxins and pollution? How about providing tax breaks to all who make changes that make their energy use more efficient? How about, if coal producers can't cost effectively produce coal without poisoning the environment, we say "Sorry, your industry is obsolete." How about we use funds to retrain people who lose jobs to such obsolete industries, so that they develop the needed skills to work in the growing renewable energy fields (and by doing so, give them the added perk of not dying from black lung disease or mine cave-ins)?
I think we are about to find out. I read there has been 400 coal burning plants shut down and another 400 is about to get shut down. You know me, I am for clean renewable geothermal energy. And I would like to see fish back in the rivers.
But I think we need to rethink the job training. At some point there are going to be more people than jobs available. And just creating jobs so we don’t have a welfare system is not the correct answer either. That is the Old Russian system. The old American system where people wanted to create their own little business was killed by over regulations. Didn’t Obama invest hundreds of millions of tax payers’ dollars in renewable energy companies? Only to have them all go bankrupt. We might allow people to collect early Social Security. But I don’t think retraining has a good track record.
What I would like to see is the corporation laws changed. A company can produce toxins and the most that happens is the corporation get into trouble. The corporation is a piece of paper. That needs to be changed and people have to become responsible. If the stockholders and corporation officers are made responsible, I think the whole pollution problem will fade away.
... You know me, I am for clean renewable geothermal energy. And I would like to see fish back in the rivers. But I think we need to rethink the job training. At some point there are going to be more people than jobs available. And just creating jobs so we don’t have a welfare system is not the correct answer either. That is the Old Russian system. The old American system where people wanted to create their own little business was killed by over regulations. Didn’t Obama invest hundreds of millions of tax payers’ dollars in renewable energy companies? Only to have them all go bankrupt. We might allow people to collect early Social Security. But I don’t think retraining has a good track record.If the older folks don't want retraining, then invest in training the young for renewable energy jobs, with companies that are already showing signs of success, and WILL need new workers. The solar energy industry is growing like gang busters. Solara, going down in flames, was a propaganda coup for the "damn the environment, full profits ahead" crowd. The fact is that new industries often have lots of failures, for various reasons, early on. Solara couldn't compete against the power of Chinese solar producers, as the Chinese government was willing and able to subsidize them far beyond what the US government could or would do for new solar companies. Despite, this, some US solar companies have survived and are succeeding, despite all the opposing forces.
... What I would like to see is the corporation laws changed. A company can produce toxins and the most that happens is the corporation get into trouble. The corporation is a piece of paper. That needs to be changed and people have to become responsible. If the stockholders and corporation officers are made responsible, I think the whole pollution problem will fade away.That would be nice.
I don't disagree, but you have to break it down a little. Greed for what? Greed for a better life for our children? Everyone wants that, but what I don't think anyone in the past expected is that even when life became incredibly luxurious, we would still want more. By luxurious, I mean a warm soft bed, the ability to stay warm but not too warm, food, and options to travel just about anywhere. No one but the elite had all of that until the 20th century. But instead of being happy with it, and wanting others to have it, we keep fighting and keep wanting more. The thing that helped us progress became a disease.I think I mentioned that when I mentioned CO2 emissions. Some of the things that emit CO2 and contribute to Climate Change are oil, coal, and even one's A/C. There are other things, but the greed for financial gain for oil and coal (to name a couple) is part of what is causing Climate Change. Yes, but, it's not like someone decided they could sell carbon fuels and then created a market. We were playing around with various oils for a long time, then found coal, then oil from the ground. This created a huge savings in animal produced energy, which was a good thing. It happened so quickly, we still call engine power "horse power". So you can punish energy producers, but they're just doing what most people want, so I don't see how that can work. What we need is a way to get the users of energy to actually pay for what they get. When I buy a $4.99 piece of junk from China, I don't pay for everything that goes into that. There are subsidies that benefit governments, there are militaries that keep the cheap labor in place and then benefit others to exploit that labor, lots of things that I can't see or control. If I had to pay all that value, I probably wouldn't. If I knew what all those costs were, I would see the advantage of using my dollars to change things. Which is exactly what those who profit from my ignorance don't want.
I don't disagree, but you have to break it down a little. Greed for what? Greed for a better life for our children? Everyone wants that, but what I don't think anyone in the past expected is that even when life became incredibly luxurious, we would still want more. By luxurious, I mean a warm soft bed, the ability to stay warm but not too warm, food, and options to travel just about anywhere. No one but the elite had all of that until the 20th century. But instead of being happy with it, and wanting others to have it, we keep fighting and keep wanting more. The thing that helped us progress became a disease.I think I mentioned that when I mentioned CO2 emissions. Some of the things that emit CO2 and contribute to Climate Change are oil, coal, and even one's A/C. There are other things, but the greed for financial gain for oil and coal (to name a couple) is part of what is causing Climate Change. Yes, but, it's not like someone decided they could sell carbon fuels and then created a market. We were playing around with various oils for a long time, then found coal, then oil from the ground. This created a huge savings in animal produced energy, which was a good thing. It happened so quickly, we still call engine power "horse power". So you can punish energy producers, but they're just doing what most people want, so I don't see how that can work. What we need is a way to get the users of energy to actually pay for what they get. When I buy a $4.99 piece of junk from China, I don't pay for everything that goes into that. There are subsidies that benefit governments, there are militaries that keep the cheap labor in place and then benefit others to exploit that labor, lots of things that I can't see or control. If I had to pay all that value, I probably wouldn't. If I knew what all those costs were, I would see the advantage of using my dollars to change things. Which is exactly what those who profit from my ignorance don't want. That's another thing... large corporations who went to China as to avoid U.S. taxes and paying U.S. minimum wage. Corporations need to be rewarded for staying in the U.S., but we need to raise the minimum wage at the same time. If more people in the U.S. wanted solar and wind energy, we could lower our CO2 emissions and if more people bought things made in the U.S. that could help too, but it's gotten very difficult to find things that are truly made in the U.S.