Yesterday, I did a short interview with Dennis Avery, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the co-author of "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years."
Here's the edited transcript of the interview.
Now, your book is called, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years." First of all, how do you know that we've had global warming every 1500 years or so and for how long has that been occurring?
Well, our records go back about a million years in ice cores and sea bed sediments and it seems to be a solar length cycle based on our records of sunspots that go back several centuries and the Carbon-14 and Beryllium-10, that are produced here on earth. The Carbon-14 and Beryllium-10 cycle -- they follow the 1500 year cycle as do our temperatures.
So basically you're saying global warming is caused by the sun, not human beings. Would that be correct?
That's correct and we have confirmation in history. We had Roman warming about the time of Christ (Hawkins' Note: If I am understanding Avery correctly, the last sun driven warming cycle before this one started about 200 BC and ran through roughly 350-400 AD). Then we had the cold dark ages. We had a warming in the 10th, 11th, 12th centuries. We had 650 years of the little ice age and now we're back warming again.
Tell us about when the greenhouse gasses started surging in this century and when the temperature went up. They didn't happen at the same time, did they?
Well, if this were a human caused warming, it should have started about 1940 and trended strongly upward as global industrialization followed World War 2. That isn't what happened. The warming started about 1850. We had a surge of warming from about 1850 to 1870. We had another surge from 1916 to 1940 and then, when the greenhouse gasses began to spew from the factories, the temperatures went down for 35 years. 1976 to 1998, we had another surge of warming, but we've had no warming in the last 8 years. So, what we have is an erratic warming that started too soon to be blamed on humans and is not following in the footsteps of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Now, how much longer should we expect this global warming cycle to last and how much hotter should we expect it to get?
The typical warming has been 1 to 2 degrees Celsius. Some of them have been a bit warmer than that. The one about 5000 years ago was quite warm. Obviously, all of our wildlife species and plants have been through these cycles before and we haven't studied their coping strategies, but we know they have them because they're here.
And, we can't really predict how long this will last. The 1500 year cycle is very regular during the ice ages and it's less regular during the warmings, but we've probably got several hundred more years of warm, stable, sunny weather and then we'll have another icy age, either a little ice age or a big one, in which case, things will either get quite a bit colder or a whole lot colder and the weather will be cloudy and unstable and people will wish they were living in a warming.
If this is such a good explanation -- and it does seem to make sense -- why do you think there are so many scientists out there who say that man is responsible for global warming?
Well John, if people believe me, there wouldn't be 2 billion dollars a year in federal research grants to set-up computerized climate models, Greenpeace wouldn't be selling memberships to people terrified of warming, and Al Gore would have to get a real job.
(Laughs) That's it! ...Thank you for your time.
|










That's a hum dinger of a misleading statement. 1998 was the hottest year on record, and 10 of the hottest years recorded have been since 1994. No warming, ha! What's the defintion of is?
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-02-09 09:46:47
Got proof or are you blowing smoke out of your A$$?
Posted by bthewolf
2007-02-09 09:48:58
Since this discussion is about Global Warming, he was probably discussing temperatures worldwide. Just because the area you live in had record temperatures does not mean that increase was across the globe.
Posted by StanW
2007-02-09 09:50:42
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
How far back do the records go?
Posted by xtremewing
2007-02-09 09:54:31
http://www.ens-newswire.com/en...04/2004-12-16-03.asp
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-02-09 09:55:45
Posted by clay6
2007-02-09 09:58:08
Environmental NewsWire? Could you at least TRY to post an unbiased news source?
Posted by StanW
2007-02-09 10:00:10
Scraping frost off the windshields near the equator.
Pinko shove your global warming crap.
Posted by xtremewing
2007-02-09 10:03:50
It's a 2 billion dollar industry and most of the people trumpeting global doom stand to make money off of it.
Posted by mojoe
2007-02-09 10:05:03
Here's a couple of links from the most trusted name in news, Stan:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242658,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jan09/0,4670,BritainGlobalWarming,00.html
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-02-09 10:09:33
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-02-09 10:11:36
February 9, 2007 9:55 AM |
Uh 145 yrs of record keeping, and records from 1861-1961 were HOW accurate? The evidence based on records using questionable data sets is little more than CRAP. We take samples now over several thousand sites world wide, in 1861 they likely had measurements in at best several hundred sites and many were likely taken in the more civilized areas of Europe and North America thus providing a very poor and regionalized sample set. This is very shoddy method of of scientific sampling.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-02-09 10:15:48
Unfortunately, we've only been tracking global temperatures for the last few decades. So you're extrapolating, which amounts to "Gee, if it got warmer in Pittsburgh since 1950, it must have gotten warmer everywhere."
Posted by CavalierX
2007-02-09 10:17:08
http://www.canada.com/national...a08-902b95c45dcf&k=0
The version that emerged from Shanghai concludes, "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." Yet the draft was rife with qualifiers making it clear the science was very much in doubt because "the accuracy of these estimates continues to be limited by uncertainties in estimates of internal variability, natural and anthropogenic forcing, and the climate response to external forcing."
http://www.canada.com/national...ad8-89de085af353&k=0
I have links too Pinko
Posted by xtremewing
2007-02-09 10:19:18
If modern barbarians would simply throw flower-bedecked SUVs into volcanos, I would giggle and let them have their harmless beliefs. They can even hide under the bed when the gods roll bowling balls across the sky during thunderstorms.
But to ask those of us with scientific knowledge to accept man-made global warming and to deny developing countries their right to technology is as barbaric as throwing children into a well. More barbaric; they are throwing millions of children into poverty filled death because of an ignorant religious belief.
When people throw God out of their lives, they have to fill the empty gaping hole in them somehow. Thus we get communism, and the new barbaric religion of global warming.
Posted by Bonnie_
2007-02-09 10:19:47
Posted by farmer1
2007-02-09 10:29:28
February 9, 2007 10:29 AM
I agree on all counts. Well said.
Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
2007-02-09 10:33:00
Global warming.
Why is it bad?
Posted by n_obrain
2007-02-09 10:34:07
by pinko.
---------------------
O.K, but last year all of the "greatest minds" predicted a violent hurricane season because of your so called "Global Warming".
What happened "dude"?
Posted by xtremewing
2007-02-09 10:34:07
>into cenotes and let them drown in order to
>assure good weather.
And Liberals want to do the same with our economy. Same magic, different ritual.
Posted by CavalierX
2007-02-09 10:35:18
Good post, and many agree.
Posted by tblrk2006
2007-02-09 10:38:31
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jan09/0,4670,BritainGlobalWarming,00.html
Tom, I thought this came from Faux news, not Fox news. So, you only trust Fox when it supports your agenda?
I have included the second link for a reason. Maybe you should actually read the link for a change.
Excerpts:
Deepening drought in Australia. Stronger typhoons in Asia. Floods in Latin America. British climate scientists predict that a resurgent El Nino climate trend combined with higher levels of greenhouse gases could touch off a fresh round of ecological disasters _ and make 2007 the world's hottest year on record.
So, British scientists are predicting, huh? This is part of your "fact?"
There is a 60 percent chance that the average global temperature for 2007 will match or break the record, Britain's Meteorological Office said Thursday. The consequences of the high temperatures could be felt worldwide.
And what if the scientists are wrong? Will you finally admit defeat?
El Nino also can do some good. It tends to take the punch out of the Atlantic hurricane season by generating crosswinds that can rip the storms apart _ good news for Florida's orange growers, for example.
I thought that global warming would increase hurricanes? You mean, environmentalists are wrong?
Posted by Kingfisher
2007-02-09 10:39:15
Posted by farmer1
I'm sure we will. but not until the fossil fuels are depleted. It's all about economics.
Posted by xtremewing
2007-02-09 10:40:56
Thanks for the links. I'll review and let you know.
And for your information, the original interview made the accusation "They are in it for the money". It didn't take nine posts, it was one of the original points.
Posted by StanW
2007-02-09 10:42:06
Posted by farmer1
I agree as long as we leave the development to the scientists and engineers. Right now, environmentalists and politicians seem to think that there is a conspiracy from the oil companies to keep fossil fuels.
We may be smart, but we are fallible human beings. We cannot work miracles.
Posted by Kingfisher
2007-02-09 10:42:20
I agree with this except for the running out part. That has been a scare tactic for years and has always proved false. "Many believe" space aliens killed Kennedy. That is not a basis for national policy.
Posted by StanW
2007-02-09 10:44:46
Preview is my Friemd
Sheesh.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-02-09 10:47:22
Even his reasons for calling the book, "State of Fear", are very interesting.
Posted by roglewis
2007-02-09 10:51:42
Why is it bad?
Posted by n_obrain
February 9, 2007 10:34 AM |
One possible very bad outcome: Temperatures rise, and the ice caps melt. Raising sea levels. You have a house at the beach on the Jersey Shore? Not any more. Also, the ice caps are fresh water. When that melted ice mixes with the salty seawater, it will change the density of that water, which can disrupt the system of ocean currents. Good bye Gulf Stream, good bye temperature northern Europe. This will also affect weather patterns worldwide. So we have a planet that has more humans on it than at any point in its history, and areas that once had stable climates no longer do. That is why global warming is bad.
Is that the defintie outcome? No one knows for sure. Is it possible? Absolutely.
Bonnie, I'm curious....what do your people with scientific knowledge think about evolution vs. Intelligent Design? I'm just trying to get a frame of reference for what you consider science.
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-02-09 10:52:45
Remember the landfill space problems of the 80's? Yeah.
Posted by seschub
2007-02-09 10:55:04
No you don't. Don't bother trying to link the two.
Oops.
Posted by seschub
2007-02-09 10:58:59
Of course they won't. I mean, they were 100% wrong about the 2006 hurricane season -- you know, the one that was going to bring us a gazillion simultaneous Katrinas for six solid months, or whatever asinine hyperbole du jour the environmental doomsday lobby concocted -- and have you detected even the slightest humility or contrition on their part for that prognosticative debacle?
Not a drop. But pay no mind to their unbelievably bad track record on making predictions, because they're absolutely, positively certain that the earth is getting warmer and man's activity is responsible for it.
More importantly, unlike "Islamic fanaticism", which never hurt anybody, this real crisis, while date not yet having cost a single human being his or her life, has the potential to start encroaching on shorelines and stuff long after most of us are dead! I'm super serial!
Tell you what, guys. Get something right -- I mean, just once, get one of your much-publicized impending disaster scenarios even a little bit right, and I can stop laughing at the ineptitude of your silly chicken little cult. Forgive me for not willingly and in the name of blind faith sacrificing my quality of life at the altar of pseudo-scientific mysticism.
Posted by VJay
2007-02-09 11:00:39
Posted by ArbiterStrikesBack
2007-02-09 11:01:00
Thanks, Tom. I did see The Day After Tomorrow. I guess I didn't that it as scientific fact like you did.
Higher temperatures? GLOBAL WARMING!!!
Lower Temperatures? GLOBAL WARMING!!!
Increased Hurricanes? GLOBAL WARMING!!!
No Hurricanes at all? GLOBAL WARMING!!!
Talk about hedging your bets.
Posted by StanW
2007-02-09 11:02:07
The portion of that Fox News article that was relevant to my point is here:
"Figures for 2006 are not yet complete, but the weather service said temperatures were high enough to rank among the top 10 hottest years on record."
For clarity's sake, I should have quoted it. And the reason I used FoxNews is that they are citing the same stats from the "leftist" sites which Stan ridiculed me for using, so I had to resort a "trusted" (by right wingers) source.
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-02-09 11:03:01
From sun, to volcanoes, to gravity, Global Warming is natural, not man made.
And by the way: We had record COLD for the state of Michigan: The coldest 10 days in the past 100 years, if that is people choose to ignore two years ago when every night in February was below zero with the wind chill factor.
Posted by Corperate_Cabana
2007-02-09 11:04:16
February 9, 2007 11:01 AM |
And ALGORE will be head of the EPA!
Posted by bthewolf
2007-02-09 11:04:42
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay February 9, 2007 11:03 AM
Tom, please accept my apology for ridiculing your links. You are one of the few leftists that actually make an attempt to post backup to your points. That should be encouraged.
Posted by StanW
2007-02-09 11:07:16
Posted by bauhaus
2007-02-09 11:14:33
And a lot of the pro-GW scientists are funded by radical environmental groups. Groups that financially benefit by proclaiming that the sky is falling.
You have absolutely no credibility.
Posted by Kingfisher
2007-02-09 11:16:12
February 9, 2007 10:51 AM |
I agree, State Of Fear is a great book for getting a better perspective on the Global Warming debate. I wish somebody would compile all the arguments and studies cited in State Of Fear and release them as a non-fiction book. I always feel a little weird referring to a work of fiction in support of my arguments (sort of like people who use The DaVinci Code to argue about Christianity). I know the studies he used are all legit, but it would sound more credible if they were all amassed in a best-selling work of non-fiction.
Posted by President_Friedman
2007-02-09 11:16:24
February 9, 2007 11:12 AM
Does that mean we could also discredit every pro-Global Warming scientist that recieves any funds from a left leaning institution?
Posted by BIG
2007-02-09 11:17:22
Posted by Let_It_Be
February 9, 2007 11:12 AM |
----------------------------------------
But we're supposed to fall hook line and sinker for some tree hugging hippies theory?
Tell me LIB, what do trees' emit?
Posted by xtremewing
2007-02-09 11:18:12
Posted by seschub
2007-02-09 11:18:40
Kingfisher, guess where that quote comes from. A environmental group? Nope. Try the US government's own Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-02-09 11:19:28
Posted by Let_It_Be
February 9, 2007 11:12 AM |
............................
And if that does not tarnish the 'source', just read his last comment in the interview and see that "agenda" he already has.
...............
Well John, if people believe me, there wouldn't be 2 billion dollars a year in federal research grants to set-up computerized climate models, Greenpeace wouldn't be selling memberships to people terrified of warming, and Al Gore would have to get a real job.
Posted by rotunda
2007-02-09 11:21:45
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-02-09 11:22:06
Yeah, so? The same group came up with the Sarbanes-Oxley act and McCain-Feingold. Guess how effective THESE are?
Posted by Kingfisher
2007-02-09 11:22:31
Which gets its money from where, again?
Posted by CavalierX
2007-02-09 11:25:38
Kingfisher, guess where that quote comes from. A environmental group? Nope. Try the US government's own Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay February 9, 2007 11:19 AM
Please explain to me how modifiers in the class of "likely are", "might have", or "many scientists agree" translate to cold, hard facts???
Posted by StanW
2007-02-09 11:26:53
Posted by Let_It_Be
February 9, 2007 11:12 AM |
Which is a thousand times more than you've EVER had! And LIB if his science is VALID, then where he gets the money for his research is irrelevant. And from what I've read his science beats your spouting off any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-02-09 11:27:17
I agree, but "weaning ourselves off fossil fuels" isn't going to work, whether for the sake of reducing global warming or reducing pollution. America isn't the only country sucking up fossil fuels. China and India are buying HUGE quantities of oil to satisfy their endlessly increasing populations and the increasing level of industrialization. Weaning America off fossil fuels might make a dent in the oil market, but it won't last.
That's why, IMO, the best thing to do is to INCREASE our use of fossil fuels. The faster all the oil is used up, the faster we will have alternative fuels. Once all the wells start to dry up, demand for hydrogen cells, electric cars, and so on will skyrocket. And once THAT happens, innovators around the world will start raking in the green.
This is why I think global warming proponents have had little to no success at lowering fossil fuel consumption. They keep crying about rising sea levels and increasing global temperatures even though most people alive today will never ever live long enough to see either of those things happen, if they happen at all. People are shortsighted. They just won't get worked up about something that will only affect their children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children.
Instead, global warming proponents should concentrate on things that are actually affecting people NOW.
Why do we have a Clean Air Act? Because someone pointed out the very real possibility of smog-choked cities.
Why do we have a Clean Water Act? Because someone pointed out the very real possibility of contaminated water.
Why do we have a National Park Service? Because someone pointed out the beautiful forests, mountains, and other landmarks that nobody wants to lose.
See the difference? If environmentalists want to get anywhere, they need to focus on short-term consequences rather than long-term consequences.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-02-09 11:28:35
I deal with Sarbanes-Oxley all the time. You wouldn't believe how many forests have been wiped out as a result.
Posted by BIG
2007-02-09 11:37:56
In fact, if you'll actually Read more of the "Deniers", you'll see that there were several PRO BONO statisticians that peer reviewed the data and found tons of errors.
Having said that, I also agree whole heartedly with Farmer1's comment about finding alternatives to using oil. Like Clean Nuclear power...greenies hate that.
Posted by Trogdor
2007-02-09 11:39:40
February 9, 2007 11:28 AM |
Agreed, and push for greener more efficient use of our current resources. More energy efficiency homes, cars, appliances WORLDWIDE will have a bigger impact overall than draconian legislation designed to stifle US industry.
I'm going to be building my next home with as much efficiency as I can, not for the enviroment, but because it will save me tons of money in the long term. If more thought that way we'd be better off in just a few decades.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-02-09 11:43:58
Posted by Trogdor
2007-02-09 12:15:46
No, no, no. We need to DIScourage efficient use of fossil fuels (except when pollution threatens the local environment). The longer we put off the day that all the oil fields run dry, the longer we will have to wait before alternative fuels become a viable technology and the longer we will have to keep an eye on oil-producing nations in the Middle East. As soon as fuel companies start to sense a drop in their oil supply, they will start snapping up scientists like $2 whores (if you'll pardon the expression).
And once scientists realize that corporations will pay them a mint for giving them an alternative to fossil fuels, they will start looking at alternative fuels in earnest. Right now very few scientists (proportion-wise) are trying to develop alternative fuels because there is no money in it. Science is a very expensive thing. It has high costs and the benefits are comparatively rare. Until scientists think that they can cover their costs, they will not take the risk of sinking thousands, millions, or billions of dollars into research and ending up with nothing.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-02-09 12:16:39
I agree, but lets try to stay on topic, please.
Posted by mightysamurai
2007-02-09 12:17:33
Also, don't forget the 4000 signatures of the Heidelberg Appeal that states that there is insufficient evidence that links humans to global warming:
http://www.sepp.org/policy%20d...idelberg_appeal.html
The only conclusion that can be reached is that there is not even a consensus on global warming. It is a theory, nothing more.
Finally, I would like to see the evidence from the pro-GW crowd that shows that the Sun is not the cause in any way, shape or form. After all, global warming reacts with the Sun so it does play a factor.
One solar flare from the sun contained enough energy to power the U.S. (under current consumption) for 20 years
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sohopr3.htm
To simply dismiss the Sun's effect on global warming incredibly stupid. The Sun emits enough energy to keep us alive. To dismiss the possibility that the Sun may be outputting more energy in a standard cycle is irrational.
Posted by Kingfisher
2007-02-09 12:20:15
So, you admit you're hyping a crlock of shit, then.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-02-09 12:31:25
What's wrong with that?
Posted by Clay5
2007-02-09 12:31:30
Posted by bauhaus
February 9, 2007 11:14 AM |"
Well, if you consider E-coli a tasty source of nutrition, well, yeah.
Posted by n_obrain
2007-02-09 12:33:51
Just like NYT polls.
I don’t often agree with you, but you hit this one right on the head. Well said.
Global Warming does increase hurricanes! Except for the years when it is reducing them. Got it now?
He would make an outstanding Inferior Secretary!
Can you ask for “cold” hard fact when debating global “warming”?
Posted by Don_cos
2007-02-09 12:34:47
Posted by Trogdor
February 9, 2007 11:39 AM |
.............................
Because there is no such thing.
Posted by rotunda
2007-02-09 12:43:44
Posted by rotunda
February 9, 2007 12:43 PM |
Then why don't you go over to Fwance and tell them that? Eighty percent of their electric is produced by nuclear plants.Although nuclear energy produces zero emissions,those retards still can't meet that worthless Kyoto Protcol.
And Yucca Mtn. awaits our spent fuel,talk about a waste.
Posted by xtremewing
2007-02-09 13:01:59
We do agree, and I'm sure you'll agree that Al Gore is the head of a new Cult. The cult of global warmists. They'll drink Kool-Aid from Whole Foods, and try to prevent others from buying fresh safe food from WalMart.
Posted by Trogdor
2007-02-09 13:24:18
Posted by rotunda
You better tell that to Europe--the Kyoto capitol of the world.
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/maps.htm
196 nuclear plants around Europe. Than you must be saying that we should go back to oil and coal since nuclear is not clean.
Posted by Kingfisher
2007-02-09 13:26:25
Yes there is. We have hundreds of reactors on our Navy ships. They have been used for decades and we have had no accidents, leaks or anything negative occure.
Posted by Don_cos
2007-02-09 13:37:04
Were they wrong then?
Are they wrong now?
Or do they simply not know enough and are using fear to push an agenda?
I'll take what's behind Door #3, Monty.
July, 1974. Time magazine.
Posted by jimg
2007-02-09 13:44:55
...except on other planets, like Mars and even Pluto (oh, sorry, that's been "de-planetised" or something). Works just fine there. It's only on Earth that the Sun has no warming or cooling effect, you know.
</moonbat>
Posted by CavalierX
2007-02-09 13:54:46
Posted by Kingfisher
February 9, 2007 1:26 PM |
.............................
In a "nut"shell this is the type of reasoning which is foolish.
Posted by rotunda
2007-02-09 14:05:07
Posted by Don_cos
February 9, 2007 1:37 PM
...............................
And the nuclear waste is going 'where' exactly? And once put there, how long is it going to last?
Posted by rotunda
2007-02-09 14:08:11
February 9, 2007 2:08 PM
I have a suggestion Rot, but you won't like it.
As it is we have several storage sites with plenty of capacity, and IF the issue comes up again we can explore more or better options. But for CLEAN energy the best way with current tech that puts out sufficient yeild is and will continue to be nuclear.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-02-09 14:18:46
/moonbat
Posted by Bill_Dalasio
2007-02-09 14:20:34
Posted by mike_the_engineer
2007-02-09 14:20:50
February 9, 2007 2:20 PM |
Which is why adcocate nuclear power in the form of pebble bed reactors, for EACH and every politcally stable nation in the world.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-02-09 14:26:45
Plenty of people have off-grid solar systems in their houses. The benefit is that they don't melt down or give you cancer.
Posted by mike_the_engineer
2007-02-09 14:28:47
February 9, 2007 2:28 PM
Mike,
Not so much a question to make a point but a few serious queries: How well has the storage issue been resolved? Can a person rely on solar consistently? How scalable is it? I mean, could you effectively power, say, an multi-unit building outside of the sunbelt? Could you get enough power for transportation? Any companies you know of strong in the industry? Any good websites for research?
Posted by Bill_Dalasio
2007-02-09 14:59:59
But they are expensive and they take several years to actually deliver the energy cost that it takes to manufacture them. Solar cells are several years away from being viable even if they do make you feel good about yourself. I really hope they do become viable in the near future. I'd love to be able to put them on my cabin up north and have it make money for me while I'm not there.
I'm all for nuclear energy for home and commercial power and Biodiesel for vehicles right now. I'm not a big fan of corn ethanol since it seems to me that it's a crappy fuel which is being mandated by the government since it can't win in the market.
Posted by bjlillo
2007-02-09 15:04:13
Posted by CavalierX
February 9, 2007 1:54 PM |
Except this other planets don't have atmoshperes, Cav. Just a little disticntion there.
....How do I put a quote inside of the light grey box within my post? I was away when the format change happened, so I missed that how to class (if there was one)....
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-02-09 15:08:09
February 9, 2007 3:08 PM
Except your statement is patently untrue on its face.
See here:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/to...sphere.html&edu=elem
or here:
http://chapters.marssociety.or...mars_atmosphere.html
Posted by Bill_Dalasio
2007-02-09 15:28:11
Or you search for HTML help, or you can "view source" with your browser and figure out all kinds of fun stuff.
Posted by Trogdor
2007-02-09 15:47:54
Use blockquote tags.
Posted by bjlillo
2007-02-09 15:49:05
<blockquote>Text goes here.</blockquote>
Posted by bjlillo
2007-02-09 15:50:09
February 9, 2007 3:04 PM
Research is getting close to a being able to make ethanol viable, apparently now someone has come up with a way to extract more ethanol from the corn and do so with less energy consumption, by burning the byproducts as fuel(methanol). Don't remember the details so I don't have link, but in 10 yrs Ethanol MAY make it.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-02-09 15:51:57
Like that?
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-02-09 15:58:33
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-02-09 15:59:24
I really hope you're right. Sadly right now, all the mandate seems to be doing is driving up the price of corn, making Archer Daniels Midland happy, and pissing off Mexicans since the price of tortillas is going through the roof (no that's not racist, that was an actual news story I read the other day.)
With corn at $4 a bushel, the price of a lot of our basic foods are going to go up, some significantly.
Posted by bjlillo
2007-02-09 16:03:19
Posted by seschub
2007-02-09 16:15:51
Regarding alternate fuels, here's a pretty informative link:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afd.../afv/afvehicles.html">http://www.eere.energy.gov/afd.../afv/afvehicles.html
Posted by LoneWolf
2007-02-09 16:17:03
Posted by LoneWolf
2007-02-09 16:18:38
(temporarily stunned speechless by the blatant stupidity)
Posted by CavalierX
2007-02-09 16:19:50
Yes that comes off looking quite embarassing, but I can assure you that I am quite aware that other planets have atmoshperes.
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2007-02-09 16:36:06
CONSERVATIVES: OK. Let's drill for more oil here.
LIBERALS: Nope, hurts the environment!
CONSERVATIVES: OK, then let's check out nuclear power.
LIBERALS: Nope, too dangerous!
CONSERVATIVES: OK, how about wind power.
LIBERALS: Nope, ruins our views!
CONSERVATIVES: OK, then what SHOULD we do?
LIBERALS: We must reduce your dependances on foreign oil and invest in alternate fuel sources.
Posted by StanW
2007-02-09 16:44:09
Our nuclear waste might be used someday to power our Earth-to-Moon-Base yachts, once some bright person figures out a use for it. Yucca Mountain isn't burying spent nuclear waste -- it's storing it until we can figure out a way to exploit it.
But of course if the global warming barbarians get their way, we'll be praying to the Moon God and shivering in our animal pelt clothing.
Nuclear power is safe, clean, and non-polluting. The reason the wackos don't want it is because they want to destroy western civilization.
Oh, and make lots of money from dupes, of course. That too.
Posted by Bonnie_
2007-02-09 16:55:26
If they don't have atmospheres as rich as earth's to trap the warmth and the Martians aren't driving around in SUV's polluting their non-rich atmosphere, why are the other planets warming at the same rate as Earth is?
Posted by bjlillo
2007-02-09 17:03:07
Posted by Trogdor
2007-02-09 17:13:04
Global warming.....follow the money, follow the money, follow the money!
Posted by tazzmax
2007-02-09 17:50:03
Posted by farmer1
Dang farmer, stop making so much sense! It's like abortion or gay marriage, ain't no one gonna change no one's mind once it's made up.
I promise not to comment on GW anymore.
BTW I heard about some farmers in Iowa that were losing money trying to grow and sell corn in the traditional way. So they have built a factory to convert the corn to fuel for cars. Have you heard anything about it? If so are they doing well?
Posted by Let_It_Be
2007-02-09 19:46:48
February 9, 2007 7:46 PM |
We've got several dozen plants making ethanol at the moment, and even more planned.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-02-09 20:31:37
Great! Now if only the rest of the trolls would make the same pledge.
Posted by MediumHeadBoy
2007-02-09 20:44:29
Posted by farmer1
Well said sir.
We buy new 4 cylinder and 6 cyinder vehicles top-rated for reliability and keep them for 10 to 15 years. 100% on windpower through out windpower option with the electric utility. Last year the price we were paying dipped below that of regular service, now it's just a little above. Added 15 inches of attic insulation and insulated the crawl space which cut our natural gas consumption by 30%. Top-rated energy-star appliances whenever an old one breaks.
We use the single-stream recycling dumpsters at the church right down the street - result we put out one small garbage can of trash per week for a family of four.
And guess what - I'm a major global warming skeptic and a Republican. Conservation just makes sense especially when it's fattening my wallet with all the savings. :)
Posted by MnD
2007-02-09 21:09:41
February 9, 2007 9:09 PM |
Check out Monolithic Domes for energy effieceny, that's what I'm building when we move in about 5 yrs. We'll have radiant heat and an on demand water heater, utilities(water, gas, and electric) will cost me about $1800 annually.
Posted by bthewolf
2007-02-09 21:29:53
"In fact, if you'll actually Read more of the "Deniers", you'll see that there were several PRO BONO statisticians that peer reviewed the data and found tons of errors."
trogdor can you PLEASE link me or tell me where they are? i was having a discussion with a buddy about global warming and he said there wasnt ever any articles in peer reviewed journals from the people who say global warming isnt caused by man and i had no response - id really like to see these articles so i can show them to him so if you cant link em tell me where to find em (journal name, date, issue, page, etc)
Posted by Gipper81
2007-02-10 03:05:14
Posted by llamazaresj
2007-02-10 08:17:26
So does wood dummy. All those cavemen up to the pioneers burning wood to stay warm, but it took a few coal burning plants in the USA to set off G.W.
What a maroon.
Posted by xtremewing
2007-02-10 08:56:57
They always plead total ignorance of the program, despite the fact it was well publicized by the utility with bill inserts (and in the newspapers when the rates dropped below that of conventional fuel sources).
They then promise to "look into it". I've followed up with a few of them and not a single one has signed up although the "intend to". They don't say it - but that's because usually it costs a little more.
Liberal global warming alarmists are all for changing the world - until it costs them anything out of their own pocket. I wonder how many liberals have sent their GWB tax refunds and savings back to the Treasury - or spent it on energy conservation projects for their homes.
Not many I suspect.
Posted by MnD
2007-02-10 10:03:51
What a maroon.
Posted by xtremewing
I'd think twice before calling people names or you could be the moron in the end. If you burn wood, the amount of CO2 produced equals the amount the tree has "breathed in" in his lifetime. So the CO2 balance is nearly zero. However if you burn coal or oil which contain amounts of CO2 plants have gathered in millions of years and release it in only a few years that makes a huge difference.
Posted by llamazaresj
2007-02-10 13:38:20
Posted by llamazaresj
2007-02-10 13:46:58
test
Posted by robert_miller
2007-02-10 13:47:30
So why did the earth warm up again in the 9th and 10th centuries? If you want to say global warming caused by man started in 1850, I believe you'll be the first to propose it. The US had around 20 million people in 1860 and the total world population was around 1 billion. If 6.5 billion people can barely cause the temperature to rise 1 degree C, there is no way 1 billion people in still mostly agrarian societies could do cause any detectable change.
Posted by seschub
2007-02-10 14:29:43
As Posted by xtremewing
February 9, 2007 10:19 AM
Heres the link you want - Gipper81
Posted by bthewolf
2007-02-10 14:49:34
Don't ruin economy over tiny temp rise
February 11, 2007
BY MARK STEYN Sun-Times Columnist
...
... In the course of the 20th century, the planet's temperature supposedly increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius, which (for those of you who want it to sound scarier) is a smidgeonette over 1 degree Fahrenheit. Is that kinda sorta staying the same or is it a dramatic warming trend?
And is nought-point-seven of an uptick worth wrecking the global economy over? Sure, say John Kerry and Al Gore, suddenly retrospectively hot for Kyoto ratification. But, had America and Australia signed on to Kyoto, and had Canada and Europe complied with it instead of just pretending to, by 2050 the treaty would have reduced global warming by 0.07C: a figure that would be statistically undectectable within annual climate variation. And, in return for this meaningless gesture, American GDP in 2010 would be lower by $97 billion to $397 billion -- and those are the U.S. Energy Information Administration's somewhat optimistic models.
And now Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research says "it might take another 30 Kyotos" to halt global warming: 30 x $397 billion is . . . er, too many zeroes for my calculator.
So, faced with a degree rise in temperature, we could destroy the planet's economy, technology, communications and prosperity. And ruin the lives of millions of people.
Or we could do what man does best: adapt.
You do the math.
©Mark Steyn 2007
Posted by Rose
2007-02-13 12:41:25
Posted by llamazaresj
February 10, 2007 1:38 PM |
***********
Except that it hasn't, in fact.
Posted by Rose
2007-02-13 12:44:14