Is global warming real or a hoax? - Page 20 - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars

**fab** · 07-16-2008, 05:58 AM

I think this is quite an excellent approach, which I hope he really enacts:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...gy_policy.html

**Raider** · 07-16-2008, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fab

I think this is quite an excellent approach, which I hope he really enacts:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...gy_policy.html

Good article, Thanks for posting Fab.

Reducing our dependency on foreign oil needs to happen, and soon. We also need to build more Nuclear plants as he says, I knew France was 80% Nuclear and were something like 20%.. What's up with that? I think Congress is too easily influenced by environmental groups, they also don't want to be labeled polluters when re-election time comes around, but it's reached a point where we have to act on our energy needs.

**HarveyJ** · 07-16-2008, 11:55 PM

Actually, I think it has more to do with people not realising how amazingly difficult it would be to get the amount of nuclear material required to power the United States.
The energy requirements would be substantially higher because you lose a lot in the transmission of energy, and even if the nuclear plants WERE built, there's no way known they'd be near population centers.
Purchasing the material in the sheer quantities is also difficult, because the US doesn't actually have all that much radiological material. Most of the readily available stuff is in Europe and Australia for some reason.

That said, the amount of sunlight reaching the South Western parts of the US would easily provide all the energy needs if people could get over the whole thing of the construction costs outweighing those of Nuclear, because the ongoing costs are certainly cheaper (as in, no mining or refining for materials).
Imagine how much power could be generated if all the people growing corn for ethanol just turned the land over to solar farming!

**fab** · 07-17-2008, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Actually, I think it has more to do with people not realising how amazingly difficult it would be to get the amount of nuclear material required to power the United States.
The energy requirements would be substantially higher because you lose a lot in the transmission of energy, and even if the nuclear plants WERE built, there's no way known they'd be near population centers.
Purchasing the material in the sheer quantities is also difficult, because the US doesn't actually have all that much radiological material. Most of the readily available stuff is in Europe and Australia for some reason.

That said, the amount of sunlight reaching the South Western parts of the US would easily provide all the energy needs if people could get over the whole thing of the construction costs outweighing those of Nuclear, because the ongoing costs are certainly cheaper (as in, no mining or refining for materials).
Imagine how much power could be generated if all the people growing corn for ethanol just turned the land over to solar farming!

I'm all for Solar Energy use, and if you read the McCain plan, it's a multi-source plan. I have solar water heater, and may get solar electricity.

The problem is that the citizens not only the government need to make the push.

**H2FC** · 07-17-2008, 06:12 PM

Elderly, poor, kids to suffer most health harm from global warming, White House report says

By SETH BORENSTEIN , Associated Press
Last update: July 17, 2008 - 2:06 PM

WASHINGTON - Global warming will affect the health and welfare of every American, but the poor, elderly, and children will suffer the most, according to a new White House science report released Thursday.

The 284-page report, mostly written by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said every region of the country will be hit by worse health from heat waves and drought. It said all but a handful of states would have worse air quality and flooding. It predicts an increase in diseases spread by tainted food, bad water and bugs.

The report "concludes that climate change poses real risk to human health and human system that supports our way of life in the United States," EPA's climate change research program director Joel Scheraga said at a news conference.

Global warming is caused by greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. At current emission levels, global temperatures are likely to rise by about 2 degrees by midcentury and about 7.5 degrees by the end of the century, according to an international panel of scientists.

Most of the ill effects of global warming have been mentioned in past federal and international reports, but this report details how climate change will "accentuate the disparities already evident in the American health care system."

The most vulnerable Americans — the poor, elderly, sick, very young, and immigrants — will suffer more, said Kristie Ebi, the lead author of the health sections of the report and a private public health consultant. That's at least 10 percent of the country's population, probably more, she said.

It will be tougher for these people to get adequate health care for climate-related illnesses, cool down in heat waves, escape extreme events such as Hurricane Katrina, and even get enough food, the report said.

"Even in the United States, the greatest health burdens related to climate change are likely to fall on those with the lowest socio-economic status," the report said. And it notes that global warming poses "significant risks for the elderly who often have frail health and limited mobility."

While every region of America is vulnerable to global warming's health and welfare effects, more people are moving into coastal regions, which are most vulnerable to climate change because of drought and hurricanes, the report said.

Scheraga said the report wasn't intended to make recommendations for curbing global warming. Just last week, the EPA said it would not use the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, even though the U.S. Supreme Court said it could. The federal government does not regulate greenhouse gases.

This is one of 21 reports produced by the federal government's climate change science program, which reports to the White House science office and taps the expertise of various government agencies.

On the Net
The report: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-6/final-report/

As I was reading this latest report on MMGW from the Bush Administration White House I wondered how our little band of skeptic deniers would respond to it since they refuse to acknowledge mankind is responsible for creating excessive co2 by burning fossil fuels. It seems that most everybody in the world nows accepts MMGW is real and yet some here still refuse to believe it.....

**Raider** · 07-17-2008, 09:44 PM

Is this the same Seth Borenstein that wrote this?

Fighting Fat and Climate Change

By Seth Borenstein, Huffington Post. Posted December 7, 2007.

Yeah, let's blame fat people for Global Warming...

Your man Gore sure did add on the pounds from when he was President up to now, Just goes to show how much he's doing to reduce C02 emissions, or is he using carbon offsets to offset his weight?

**fab** · 07-18-2008, 06:16 AM

Here he is:

**GoPC** · 07-24-2008, 12:30 AM

VERY interesting read, if you've got the guts to face a reasonable presentation of facts by mature scientific minds. H2 and Tas may want to sit this one out.

LOTS of data, almost to much... but take the time to read through it. It not only presents conclusions but the science behind them.

In short, even the IPCC is beginning to give in and admit that MMGW may NOT be what they thought and in fact, be nothing at all.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm

Nice

GoPC

**fab** · 07-24-2008, 02:40 AM

Wow, did you actually read that entire article?

**Raider** · 07-24-2008, 06:48 AM

Check this latest one out;

Former Global Warming Alarmist Deals Blow to Greenhouse Gas Theory (Australian David Evans)

Fox News ^ | July 21, 2008 | Brit Hume

Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:30:22 AM by FocusNexus

A former global warming alarmist and creator of the model that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol says that while global warming is real, there is no evidence that the main cause is carbon emissions. David Evans says that C02 emissions play - at most - a minor role.

Evans writes in The Australian newspaper that if global warming was caused by C02, scientists would have found hot spots about six miles up in the earth's atmosphere over the Tropics. Evans describes those hot spots as the signature of the greenhouse effect. He says scientists have been trying to locate them for years using thermometers attached to weather balloons.

But he says years of research "show no hot spot - whatsoever" adding that "an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

David Evans:

No smoking hot spot (original article in "The Australian")

"I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

**H2FC** · 07-24-2008, 09:38 AM

so we have a flip-flopper...what else is new?

I think I'll stay on the majority side of the scientific peer-reviewed findings that show MMGW caused by burning fossil fuels is the main cause of climate change and will lead to certain destruction unless we develop and use alternative renewables for our energy.

Here's a short excerpt from the Al Gore speech a few days ago on the subject of MMGW. Watch it if you haven't already because it clearly explains our problem and shows the direction our country and the world is heading in the next few years, http://www.wecansolveit.org/

Here's the T. Boone Pickens plan for fighting MMGW and the higher gas prices, http://www.pickensplan.com/ I also agree with Pickens because he advocates the use of wind and solar for our energy needs in place of fossil fuels.

**Raider** · 07-24-2008, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2FC

Here's the T. Boone Pickens plan for fighting MMGW and the higher gas prices, http://www.pickensplan.com/ I also agree with Pickens because he advocates the use of wind and solar for our energy needs in place of fossil fuels.

You did it again, 2 years on the Forum trashing the oil companies calling them every name in the book, but when one Oil man comes out with a plan you agree with, we should all listen to him.... I'm for all sources of Energy and that includes windmills, but wind is far more expensive than Nuclear energy and it's a big eye sore, Everyone agrees that Nuclear energy is cheaper and far more efficient.

What about those "Hot spots"? I like how you conveniently ignored that one.

**scottle** · 07-24-2008, 02:20 PM

Interesting article about Global Warming--Check out the article by the American Physicist's Society

Read the link below about how 50,000 physicists in the American Physicist Society are prepared to reverse their position about global warming. If you encounter Global Warming advocates who persist, ask them about this statement: "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."
-http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Con...ticle12403.htm

**fab** · 07-24-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Here's the T. Boone Pickens plan for fighting MMGW and the higher gas prices, http://www.pickensplan.com/ I also agree with Pickens because he advocates the use of wind and solar for our energy needs in place of fossil fuels.

So does McCain, and Pickens clearly criticizes Gore.

**H2FC** · 07-24-2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fab

So does McCain, and Pickens clearly criticizes Gore.

I haven't read where Pickens clearly criticizes Gore but I'll take your word for it....it doesn't matter to me....as I said before, I like the Pickens plan because it advocates the use of wind and solar as alternative energies and thats what I want. I know there are many differences in Gore and Pickens and I would support Gore over Pickens every time but they both agree that wind and solar is necessary for a clean energy society and I see that as a positive.

As for McCain I wish I could believe his current position on MMGW but I cannot. I believe he is at heart a Bush clone and will continue the same ole, same ole if he's elected. The only reason McCain is where he is now is because of his taking sides with the GW believers....without that support he wouldn't even be in the race....and he knows it.

**fab** · 07-24-2008, 04:52 PM

I like this part:

Quote:

A cheap new replacement for foreign oil.

The Honda Civic GX Natural Gas Vehicle is the cleanest internal-combustion vehicle in the world according to the EPA.

Natural gas and bio-fuels are the only domestic energy sources used for transportation.
Cleaner

Natural gas is the cleanest transportation fuel available today.

According to the California Energy Commission, critical greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas are 23% lower than diesel and 30% lower than gasoline.

Natural gas vehicles (NGV) are already available and combine top performance with low emissions. The natural gas Honda Civic GX is rated as the cleanest production vehicle in the world.

According to NGVAmerica, there are more than 7 million NGVs in use worldwide, but only 150,000 of those are in the United States.

The EPA estimates that vehicles on the road account for 60% of carbon monoxide pollution and around one-third of hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions in the United States. As federal and state emissions laws become more stringent, many requirements will be unattainable with conventionally fueled vehicles.

Since natural gas is significantly cleaner than petroleum, NGVs are increasing in popularity. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach recently announced that 16,800 old diesel trucks will be replaced, and half of the new vehicles will run on alternatives such as natural gas.
Cheaper

Natural gas is significantly less expensive than gasoline or diesel. In places like Utah and Oklahoma, prices are less than $1 a gallon. To see fueling stations and costs in your area, check out cngprices.com.
Domestic

Natural gas is our country's second largest energy resource and a vital component of our energy supply. 98% of the natural gas used in the United States is from North America. But 70% of our oil is purchased from foreign nations.

Natural gas is one of the cleanest, safest and most useful forms of energy — residentially, commercially and industrially. The natural gas industry has existed in the United States for over 100 years and continues to grow.

Domestic natural gas reserves are twice that of petroleum. And new discoveries of natural gas and ongoing development of renewable biogas are continually adding to existing reserves.

While it is a cheap, effective and versatile fuel, less than 1% of natural gas is currently used for transportation.

**H2FC** · 07-25-2008, 01:39 PM

Illegal activities like the ones described below by the Bush administration are probably why many MMGW skeptics believe the way they do. Hopefully our new administration won't hide the truth on such important issues from the people who el