world

Citing effects on U.S. economy, Bush passes global warming problem to next administration

90 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

90 Comments
Login to comment

And the news is what?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

buddha4brains: News is that Bush wants to kill Clean Air Act beyond that i would like to hear from others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the news is he slid out on this one too. Not to mention but the reason wasnt the US economy im sure it was his buddies economy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"One point is clear: The potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land."

Exactly, exactly.

"Bush wants to kill the Clean Air Act."

He does not.

"Congress hasn't found the will to do much about the problem either"

Heh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What hw should have done is come out saying what a total hoax the whole man-made global warming movement is and that we're not going to waste any more tax money on a scam, that we should invest the money toward fixing real problems and quit making people's lives more difficult through higher taxes and punitive regulations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The news is about Congress' lack of progress on climate change because the Democrats want to make their buddies rich.

heheh...just kidding. That would be silly for me to sum up the article that way.

The article is difficult to figure out since it mixes and matches a lot of different areas and doesn't really give any kind of clear picture. It looks like the EPA came out with a report saying they can help with the greenhouse gas problem with their Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court agreed that they had the authority to do that. The White House is against it because they feel technology is the better approach rather than mandatory limits. Other agencies in the US government are against the EPA because it would be a massive expansion of the EPA's authority and it would reduce theirs. And Congress is doing nothing about it but the writer doesn't really give any reasons. My guess is that they don't want to upset the agencies who don't want the EPA to take over their authority.

The confusion for me comes from the fact that the article doesn't really mention if the EPA is a good choice to deal with this problem or not. It says that some gains could be seen but it brings up a whole set of issues that would arise should they be the ones to act. So, in the end, it's hard to really make sense out of the article.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The true loser colors of this president now finally come out to shine.

It just puzzles me how Americans who value their country aren't kicking up more of a stink about Bush and co., who have been working for years to relax environmental laws, which have been leading to the air and water in America getting dirtier.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

george bush will be remembered for so much crap.

One thing is he and his administration one handedly assisted global warming when he had every opportunity to work to help save the envirement. Not that he could have stopped it, but he shouldn't have put big business before the our future. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Instead of bashing Bush, we all ought to be bashing the idiots that belive in the whole global warming hoax. Bunch of BS.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gyudon - "Instead of bashing Bush, we all ought to be bashing the idiots that believe in the whole global warming hoax. Bunch of BS."

ha ha ha! Great joke! :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I must be reading this article wrong. There are quite a few points where Bush is right and mind you the EPA really hasn't been a big help. It was they who pushed to have DDT banned throughout the world, due its suppossed effects however, once it was banned, mosquito born diseases starting plaguing Africa. They wouldn't even go for a trade off. Rising gasoline as a method to reduce greenhouse gases is not a way. Most would be thinking of American selfishness because they want to drive, but as the article points out, there is heating to consider, shipping, and a whole lot of others.

Additionally, in a way in which Gyudon points out, as what happened in the past with environmentalists, who were laughed at are now doing the same on the flip side. Anyone going counter to Al Gore is considered a freak.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He may be a clown. But he's a consistent clown.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

During this administration, the EPA has rewritten every paper damn near that references global warming and entered some lawyers terms and parried it down to nothing but natural enviremental actions and there was nothing that man has done to cause it.

The EPA and george bush turned back every action by the Clinton administration that did anything to hinder big business, even though it was a requirement to save our lives.

Big business ran this country's enviremental program. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream - "and parried it down to nothing but natural enviremental actions and there was nothing that man has done to cause it."

People like Sarge have bought that line, hook, line and sinker.

Amazing....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People like Sarge have bought that line, hook, line and sinker." Hold on Sushi, while this is a problem, both sides of this issue have become the same as the other, just different sides of the fence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush fails to even cover up his failures this time around. No surprise to anyone who sees the truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The bushadministration will be remembered as the most inresponsible administration ever. Inresponsible foreign policy with badly researched wars, inresponsible fical policy spending America broke through wars and taxcuts, inresponsible climate policy, doing everything to hide the truth.

As a European it makes me sick when I hear thoese pathetic excuses. The US has been enviromentally freeriding for so many years, letting everyone drive around fuel inefficient cars and making gas so ridiculously cheap. Americans weeps over their $4 gas per gallon, gas prices in Europe have been twice that or more for a long time without any problems. This is much alike to the story of the ants and the grasshopper. Only, this time American's summer is almost over.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush has been a total disaster for the USA and for the world. I am so sorry I ever supported him. He is currently laughing all the way to the bank as his oil companies make huge profits these days at the expense of the American people, and also the rest of us. He should be jailed, together with Gordon Brown and the other - good for nothing, do nothing politicians. We are all suffering the effects of highoil prices these days, and the spin-off effects on food prices, while politicians do absolutely nothing. A pox on the lot of them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why doesnt Bush just do us all a favour and go now - and let Obama take over and try to sirt out the mess?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US has been enviromentally freeriding for so many years

The greatest nation on earth indeed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The environment is too much of a political football to have a serious discussion about with most people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, let's face it, global warming isn't the only problem Bush Co will be passing on.

It's probably, however, the one problem Bush Co didn't actually create.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When people whine about the US having cheaper gas and blaming it on the general populace for wanting uneconomical cars, I can only put it down to jealousy.

Humans are a selfish bunch on the whole, and cheaper gas is enviable right now. If Bush Co had had the guts and integrity to bill their oil war for what it was, I might even have supported it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the one problem Bush Co didn't actually create.

But one he made worse by his cancelling of Bills passed to work on the envirement and one where the reversed ecological actions purposely for the gains of big business.

It's alright. The democrats will get blamed eventually. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

z,

Democrats share the blame I'm afraid. Perhaps President Obama will change this, but my guess it's simply more political bollocks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those that blame one branch of government of another either have no understanding of the United States governments system of checks and balances or are just political hacks taking cheap shots at the party they do not like.

Clinton and Gore chose not to even introduce the Kyoto Protocol to Congress for ratification when they had the opportunity knowing full well the treaty sucked and would eventually undermine the economy of the United States.

If Obamalamadingdong somehow is able to convince enough American voters he is not a socialist, even he with his pathetic liberal stripes isn't going to risk putting the US economy in jeopardy just because he talked a good game on the campaign trail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"People are causing global warming"

People like Sushi, smithinjapan and adaydream have bought that, hook, line and sinker.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, I'm afraid Reality, that blighted place, states people are causing global warming with CO2 emissions, amongst the rest of the sh!te we spew into the air.

Saying otherwise would be akin to being a holocaust denier.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Add Madverts to the list of people who have have duped by the wacko environmentalists into believing that we pathetic humans, by driving our SUVs and cooling our homes with air conditioning, are causing global warming, and that by stopping these activities, that global warming will cease.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge

question for ya, what do you think adding lots of extra CO2 to the atmosphere does?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush knows that this global warming stuff is all a bunch of hooey made up by socialists who want to micro-manage peoples lives. The earth has not gotten any warmer since 1998 and the hottest year on record was back in the 1930's. The climate is always changing. Sometimes it changes slowly and at other times more quickly. The ice sheet in the Artic is getting thinner and the ice in the Antartic is getting thicker. So? Those who take a big picture or historical view of the environment will understand that climate change is normal and nothing to be afraid of. Besides, 30 years from now, are climate could begin to cool significantly and we might be fortunate to have added some greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Bush has at least changed the subject from hindering the economies of just Europe and North America (for no appreciable reduction in greenhouse gases) to focusing on all nations and attempting to achieve reductions through technology (for no appreciable reduction in greenhouse gases). I can only guess that he agreed to this because it has the additional national security benefit of changing the emphasis on foreign sources of energy. Liberals and conservatives can find common cause from that stand point.

Just about every nation in the world agreed to Kyoto and it has failed to change anything. Why? Because 90% of greenhouse gas emissions are not man made. We can only affect a small percentage of emissions and even if we could reduce that 10% in half, we still won't make much of an impact. It is much more beneficial overall to raise more people out of poverty.

The reality is that there is not a so-called "consensus" on the global warming theory / theology. However, despite the conflicting evidence the media has bought into it and it is the current scare tactic used by governments to control their people. Those who paint anyone who has a different opinion as being like a "holocaust denier" are closed minded and are attempting to silence those with a different opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GW - I think the CO2 being added to the atmosphere of this planet by humans is insignificant compared to the amount of CO2 already present.

Question for ya - Do you really think that by stopping driving our SUVs and cooling our homes with air conditioning that we can stop or even significantly slow down whatever Mother Nature has in store for us?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GW - Another question for ya - what do you think of Wolfpack's 10:46 post?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not just SUV's and AC, Sarge, c'mon! Wolfpack's post is full of factual errors--That 1998 jazz has been disproven (just because one year was colder)and the last I looked the Antarctic ic is still calving and melting...A better term we could use is global climate disruption, which humans definitely contribute to...Who is the group here that are buyin' bullsh*t? Get your facts right before you start attacking people who want to improve the air and ocean quality. Even if Humans can't stop global climate disruption, we could at least stop polluting for our children's sake, you morons. The Earth will sort it out but it's our responsibility to keep it clean. So much greed has people brainwashed. Go ahead and pollute and give the Big Oil co's all your $$! See: http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0807/frontpage/real

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"wacko environmentalists" is a term used by morons to insult anyone who cares about the planet. This kind of demeaning crap needs to be called on every time. We won't shut up because you call us names, lie and continue to pollute for greed. Our opinions are backed with facts while you people continue to whistle Dixie while the Earth suffers from people's insistence on greed before environmental responsibility.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Papawhale

Thanks for commenting on my post. I went to your link but could not easily locate anything contradicting my pont about 1998 temperatures and ice sheets in the Antartic. Here is an article for you about the 1998 data with mention of the infamous hockey stick fiasco.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246027

As you can see, there is conflicting information out there about global warming. Climate change is another matter. I'm sure that everyone believes in climate change - as it changes all the time; day to day, year to year, century to century, etc...

The 1998 temperature data was a miscalculation on the part of NASA that was at one time used as proof that global warming was occuring. Only later was the data corrected and 1934 remained the hottest year on record. Given that such huge quantities of greenhouse gases have been emitted into the atmosphere some three quarters of a century ago, how can it not be hotter now? I would seem that it should be much hotter now. This is why I am not very trusting of the computer models predicting future climate change. Like the hockey stick, the correction to the 1998 NASA data error have not nearly the impact as the originally presented inaccuracies.

I am not trying to say that the average temperatures haven't gotten warmer. That could very well be the case despite scientific mistakes. However, it could be that since more temperature monitoring stations are now in urban settings, the temperature readings may not be comparable to those taken in the past.

You can put me down as a skeptic and I wouldn't reorganize the entire world economy with the meager information we have now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Citing an incredibly foolish and delusional man like George Bush as knowing anything about the science is crazy. All he cares about is the profits his oil buddies make so he can go to his ranch and have happy-crap BBQ's with his conies, who will slap him on the back and guffaw at his cackle and lame jokes, while they count the profits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heck Sarge, forget about the Co2 crap, ever since the clean air act was initiated in my city/state, I can tell you one thing, its becoming harder and harder to go outside and smell the air pollution... that enough makes me happy. About 15-20 years ago there would always be about 2 days in a week I could go outside and the air would stink horribly. Now it only happens maybe around 1 time a month if at all.

I prefer that path of at least reducing pollution. Red Tide was hardly a menace until man-kind decided to pump toxic residue from factories into the nearest water source.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kyoto didn't fail.

The United States failed Kyoto.

george bush pulled us out of the agreement.

Sometimes it's not how much you can do to turn around global warming, but it's little things that we can do that do no more damage.

george bush pulled us out of Kyoto so his big business buddies could continue business as usual. Matter of fact being able to build bigger and larger without putting in the safety equipment that would have been required if george bush had not of cancelled many EPA requiremants, also.

But that was business for george bush. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually, Clinton was president when the U.S. negotiated and failed to ratify the Kyoto agreements.

Having said that, the current administration has done nothing on the environment. Zilch. Expanding on that, the current administration has failed to do anything positive on domestic policy, foreign policy, or anything else of consequence.

As an American who voted against Bush in 2000 and 2004, the only thing I have to be ashamed of is the fact that a majority of my countrymen (disputed on both occasions) voted for someone who was so clearly inept. The fact that so many people could put blind ideology before an honest assessment of this man galls me.

Thank goodness that we have a choice of two reasonably honorable men this time around. Even if the guy I don't vote for wins, I'll know we're in good hands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone who does not believe the earth is getting hotter has zero knowledge of thermal and atmospheric dynamics.

ZERO.

The thing is, it's not even that difficult to figure out. Anyone smart enough to pass 5th grade science can figure out that humans are making the planet hotter.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JohnBecker wrote:

Having said that, the current administration has done nothing on the environment.

Not true. See the following AP article. Bush and the environmentalists had found common ground before the courts stepped in:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080711/ap_on_go_ot/clean_air

As for Kyoto, you are right that Clinton did nothing on this all important global warming agreement. He just passed the buck onto the Bush administration. When Democrat's had a chance, they did nothing. Now that they are not in the White House, they really want to do something. Yeah, right!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is distressing.

I think that Global Warming is greatly overblown, but that would mean that I would be agreeing with Sarge.

And as any casual observer can easily note, Sarge's track record is utterly abysmal.

Which makes me think this global warming thing might be an issue after all.

Question for ya - Do you really think that by stopping driving our SUVs and cooling our homes with air conditioning that we can stop or even significantly slow down whatever Mother Nature has in store for us?

Well, Steven Hawking does. He's smarter than both of us.

That doesn't mean he's always right. But the fact that he disagrees with you is pretty strong evidence in his favor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313 wrote:

"Anyone who does not believe the earth is getting hotter has zero knowledge of thermal and atmospheric dynamics. ZERO. "

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the earth is getting warmer and cooler all the time. The day is hotter than night; then majically the sun comes out and it gets warmer again. One summer may be hotter or cooler than the next. Yearly average temperatures have been lower in recent years than during the late 90's.

The fact is that it is always getting both hotter AND colder. That has always been the case throughout the history of the planet. So what! Get used to it, it's going to happen again.

The problem is that environmentalists are focusing on greenhouse gases and are ignoring the most important driver of earth's climate - the sun. The last I heard, scientists that study the sun are predicting that the earth will cool over the next several decades.

And if you think that global warming alarmists don't lie, read this:

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack, I don't need to read your article. I was trained and understand the science behind global warming. Do you understand the science behind global warming? I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, because I really think that if you spent 30 minutes actually studying the science behind it, you are smart enough to realize, that yes, we are making the planet hotter. Here, I'll even get you started:

What absorbs and stores more heat, black top or a forest? The answer is obviously tarred black top, right? After all, it's darker and has more of an even surface which aids in absorption and prevents reflection and scattering, giving it a higher albedo.

O.K. Moving on. Are we creating more tarred roads and parking lots at the expense of less natural land and forests or is the situation reversed? Again, this is a no-brainer.

Now, let's move to step 2 in the process. So, we've slightly (emphasis on slightly) warmed the planet by creating more flat surfaces that absorb and store heat to a greater degree than what was there before. This, to a very slight degree, warms the planet, thus slightly melting our ice caps. When that happens, we have more water on the planet. More water means more water vapor. The thing about water vapor is that it tends to do a far better job at reflecting and absorbing short wave radiation (coming from the sun) than it does with long wave radiation, which is what the earth gives off from the heat that is absorbed by the earth. So, the increased water vapor means that there is more long wave radiation being trapped by the water vapor in the atmosphere, creating the greenhouse effect. So, long story a little longer, through deforestation and increased ubanization, we create a cyclical pattern that takes a small problem with a slightly detrimental impact on the climate of the planet and exasperates it into a larger problem with greater ramifications. The more parking lots we create, the faster and more damaging the effect.

Seriously, it's NOT rocket science. It's just science.

Here is a pretty decent site that spells out a lot of what I'm saying: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7f.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good story Wolfpack, thanks. I just wish there was transparancy. That story should be part of a permanent timeline on the record, not news as entertainment. Let's all face it, credibility overall has been sold out whether GW exists, not, is human caused or not. This shouldnt be a debate, it should be a set of self disputing facts and processes and theories competing for all the world to see.

I mean we have the INTERNET!! Why all this fustercluck of competing sites when we could all get on the same definitive page with the unrefuted data and for all?

A few web developers could do the world a HUGE lot of good right now. -end of rant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313 your model sounds perfectly logical. I agree the science doesnt need to get that deep to see human impact. I look no further than Google Earth to be alarmed at what variables there MUST be. But after looking at that ONE effect, isn't the most rational solution depopulation via birth control? A few decades of concerted effort and MANY MANY problems suddenly dissipate.

1: Economic: Fewer people with just... more "stuff" and resources between them to work with. 2: Ecological. Just er in the right. That simple. A thousand years ago this planet could maintain balance indefinately just fine without us. 3: Psychological: The world is going flat out nuts. Why? Pressure to survive on a planet with abundant resources. Limited space keeps Israel and Palestine at each other's throats, etc etc. I'll likely die without achieving my ONE God given right. A piece of land to escape the looney bin. That's just not right. 4: Fewer people, fewer for existing jobs, more impetus for educating those we have. Automating instead of immigrating cheap labor.

on & on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just looking at Wolfpack and Taka313 latest posts convinces me some people just believe in, or rather make themselves believe in what suits them best. Some scientists may add a little extra color to their findings, but rejecting all the conclusive evidence that humans are responsible for accelerating global warming at an alarming pace does speak for intelligence levels.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone who belives that this whole man-made global warming crock is a total lemming. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that proves man has anything to do with global warming or cooling, which is cyclical. The earth has cooled for the past 8 years and people still say that the artic ice is melting when it has been proven that it is not. People such as Algore and his socialist sheep herd need to wake up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Claims that anyone with an elementary education can understand global warming are pious & idiotic malarky spread by the holy religion of eco-fanatics. Just for starters, the assertion that concrete absorbs more heat than a forrest is rediculous. Concrete reflects heat where forrests absorb, which is why the temperature above concrete is warmer than above a tree. Flawed science is not science at all. Put that together with the claim that the ice caps are melting (which has been proven is a bunch of BS), and the fact that nobody can determine the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, there is no evidence that atmospheric water vapor is increasing. The entire global warming hoax is based on man-made computer models with insufficient data, parameters and real science involved.

Anyone who belives this hoax is a total lemming.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gyudon,

Concrete reflects heat where forrests absorb, which is why the temperature above concrete is warmer than above a tree.

THAT, is a keeper. Albedo Gyudon. Look it up.

How much have you studied and do you know about meteorology and/or climatology? Based on your last post, I'll wager as much as you do about grammar and spelling.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

presto34 wrote:

"Some scientists may add a little extra color to their findings, but rejecting all the conclusive evidence that humans are responsible for accelerating global warming at an alarming pace does speak for intelligence levels."

OK - I'll admit that I'm not the smartest person in the world but I do believe that I have common sense. I'm willing to listen and learn if anyone can give me some more definitive information about the impact of man on the climate. However, there are other view points that have validity. Just because there a fewer scientists on one side of a debate than the other doesn't mean that they are wrong. There are many examples of this from eugenics to the origin of Meteor Crater in Arizona (before it was called Meteor Crater).

I don't think that it is smart to shift resources from known and pressing problems like poverty, desease, and energy to pursue policies to resolve a problem that isn't really very well understand and may not even be a problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313 wrote:

"Wolfpack, I don't need to read your article. I was trained and understand the science behind global warming."

I can't claim to be trained about global warming. What I know about it is based on my own curiousity to learn about the issue. But perhaps your comment is an indication that you are not open to new information that could cause you to question your current point of view.

Scattering, absorption, and reflection of solar radiation are interesting components of the total number of factors that influence the climate. Yes, humans have made a lot of roads that are dark and more likely to absorb energy from the sun. However, with the exception of the Kansai area, most of the world is not paved over. By far the greatest proportion of the earth's surface is covered by oceans and any view from space that you might see does not reveal a discernable parking lot anywhere. We have paved over a relatively small proportion of the earths surface. In addition, your assertion that humans have slightly warmed the earth could very well be 'offset' by the increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. More water vapor implies more clouds and greater reflectivity of solar energy thereby providing a cooling offset. But then there is the issue of absorption and the greenhouse effect. That would involve a determination of the counter acting effects of reflection. If we are to assume that absorption is greater than reflection, then the earth would get warmer. Taken alone, this makes sense. However, there are many other factors at play here that are not considered in this scenario. We know that solar radiation is not always constant and that it varies. This variability is seen in both short term and long term cycles. That would mean that even with more roads and less foresets, an increase in solar radiation could be misleading to those focusing only on roads and forests. Scientists have determined that during time periods such as the little ice age, there has been a reduced level of solar radiation. They predict that we are nearing a point in time when solar radiation will once again decrease to some extent. If this turns out to be true, then we may actually want more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - not less.

My main point with all of this is that there are many factors involved in climate change and it doesn't seem like they are all well understood. Also, the interplay between factors are not often discussed in the information that I have found on this topic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone who believes that we can stop the Earth from warming by ripping up all the pavement we've laid and replacing it with trees, stopping driving our SUVs, turning off our air conditioners and changing our lightbulbs went to the wrong meteorology/climatology school.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

either way we are screwed anyhow eh. still feel the urge to spit at any SUV i see doing the 2 minute drive to the conbini tho

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lips - We're not screwed! In the military we had a slogan we went by:

Adapt and overcome! We adapted and we overcame then, and by golly we'll adapt and overcome whatever Mother Nature has in store for us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

by golly sarge I admire your optimism

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313 - I take it then, that you still believe we can stop global warming by ripping up all the pavement we've laid and replacing it with trees, stopping driving our SUVs, turning off our air conditioners and changing our lightbulbs.

"I have over a decade of weather forecasting experience"

Then tell me what the weather's going to be like next Thursday. We'll see how close you are next Thursday.

"Where did your weather knowledge, fox news?"

Har!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge, "you still believe...blah blah blah."

No. I KNOW a lot of things however. 1) Everything you suggested would slow global warming. 2) The weather on Thursday will be fine. 3) you have never taken a meteorology course in your life.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313 - I take it then, that you are ripping up the pavement on Yokosuka and planting trees; you have stopped driving vehicles that use gasoline or diesel; you have turned off your home air conditioner; you have changed your lightbulbs.

I asked for NEXT Thursday's forecast, but, hey, I'm so glad to hear that it's going to be fine THIS Thursday, let's go with that!

True, I have never taken a meteorology course. But even I know that we mere humans are pretty much powerless to stop or even slow down whatever Mother Nature has in store for us.

While you were taking your meteorology course, I was working my butt off with my unit setting up a communications system. Although we encountered many obstacles, we worked and lived by the motto "Adapt and overcome!" That's what we're going to have to do if Mother Nature intends to warm up or cool down the planet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge, The weather for next Thursday will also, be fine. If you are looking for a pinpoint forecast however, you are (once again) showing your ignorance. Micro-scale forecasting becomes extremely unreliable outside of 96 hours. Any trained meteorologist could tell you that. Now, if you are thinking about a "gotcha" moment based on that, don't. That would be extremely twerpish. Micro-scale forecasting and macro-scale forecasting are two entirely different animals. Anyway, since you asked about the weather a week from this Thursday, I think it's safe to assume that not only have you never taken a meteorology course, you haven't even spoken to a real meteorologist before. Yet...you still question the sceintific knowledge of someone with over a decade of experience doing something you know ZERO about.

you wouldn't be you if you didn't.

The scientific fact is, the urbanization of the planet is causing the temperatures to rise. You may want to deny it and you may think that the best thing to do is ignore it now and "adapt and overcome" when it does happen. That is your choice.

Because the effects CAN be slowed, It's a really stupid choice however.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why bother quoting scientists when the climate change deniers refuse to believe what an overwhelming scientific consensus has to say? As long as people are going to be wilfully obtuse and ignore the evidence - led by G W Bush, who believes that God created the earth by some wand-waving in 6 days - then their minds are pretty unlikely to change.

This is, after all, an administration that has decided that the best way to energy independence is not to try and use less oil, but to wreck Alaskan wilderness drilling for a tiny percentage of extra domestic oil that would scarcely affect import volumes at all. Very clever.

Bush commissioned a scientific study into whether climate change was a reality and just as with the intelligence reports that didn't suit his political aims in Iraq, he's simply ignored the conclusions that he didn't like.

Words honestly fail me

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313 - "Micro-scale forecasting becomes extremely unreliable outside of 96 hours"

So, you're already making excuses in case your forecast for a fine day next Thursday turns out to be completely off the mark! Tee hee!

Think about it - if we can't accurately predict the weather a week ahead, how on Earth can we expect to measurably slow down global warming or cooling? And, following your logic, if temperatures were falling, we would be urbanizing our butts off and building and driving as many gas-guzzling CO2 spewing SUVs as we could.

"The scientific fact is, the urbanization of the planet is causing the temperatures to rise"

That's a theory held by some scientists/environmentalists. The only way to prove that would be to de-urbanize the planet and see if temperatures actually drop.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Think about it - if we can't accurately predict the weather a week ahead, how on Earth can we expect to measurably slow down global warming or cooling?

Because we already know what human-controlled factors are contributing to global warming - and we CAN control those. The fact that we cannot accurately forecast whether it'll rain or be sunny on Thursday does not, unfortunately, negate that fact.

There's another reason to try and reduce energy consumption as well - unless you are trying to argue otherwise (which, who knows, you might be), there are obviously finite quantities of fossil fuels on earth, particularly oil, on which modern society has allowed itself to become dependent. Since it's inevitable that we must move to a post-oil economy one day, the sooner we do, the better it will be.

Another fact for you: between 1977 and 1985, U.S. oil imports fell by half, while the economy grew 25 percent in the same period. It's plainly nonsense to suggest that the U.S. economy is dependent on profligate energy use to grow. Fuel efficiency makes sense, even if you think that pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere doesn't make a spot of difference to the weather - though increasingly a growing majority of your countrymen disagree with you

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hmm. Spelling put aside I was hoping for more of a reaction to a totally absurd claim than a very weak personal attack. Using absurdity to show the absurd is a great way to show how the people who blindly follow the religion of man-made global warming don't care about facts. They throw out a bunch of so-called 'evidence' based on flawed computer modelling while ignoring the fact that is no viable evidence of man-made global warming, while ignoring the mountain of facts disproving Algore's and other self-appointed messiahs' absurd claims.

One of the facts ingnored is that the earth has cooled the past 8 years in a row... Total hoax.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

f&c - "human-controlled factors are contributing to global warming"

Yeah, and Mother Nature controlled factors are the driving force behind it. IF the Earth is really getting warmer. It was freezing cold last winter...

"Fuel efficiency makes sense"

Yeah, for people who use fuel, not for those who sell it. Heck, the ones who sell it hope everyone uses as much of the stuff as possible.

"we must move to a post-oil economy one day, the sooner we do, the better it will be"

I concede the oil will run out some day. But there is no alternative to oil for the forseeable future. This is a fact.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Anyone who does not believe the earth is getting hotter has zero knowledge of thermal and atmospheric dynamics. ZERO. "

Anyone who does not look at actual data proving the earth has cooled the past 8 years has zero knowledge of anything whatsoever.

How's that for a liberal-style personal attack? I'm working on using the same arguments liberals use to promote their BS.

Oil rocks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Bush is doing the right thing: this ideology about people causing global warming is a load of unproven, unsubstantiated crock.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tiger - Even Bush has said we need to cut CO2 emissions...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the world is experiencing climate change - human caused or otherwise - is it prudent to continue practices which may speed up climate change?

Also, given that our societies are based on historical weather patterns and those patterns change, that does require a fundamental rethink of how we organize our societies and utilize technology. The head-in-the-sand attitude that focuses on the ideological (on both sides) rather than the practical is a waste of time.

Fact is many people, organisations, and companies are looking at the realities of climate change and making efforts to change, adapt and innovate. These three words are absent from Bush's thinking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am done on this thread. If people want to believe what sean hannity screeches at them, fine by me. Note, none of you have offered any physics or atmospheric dynamics to back up your claims.

ZERO.

Doesn't that say something.

Buddha, Your first question is very insightful and totally wasted on those who need to listen to it.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But there is no alternative to oil for the forseeable future. This is a fact.

Never heard of nuclear power, solar power, wind generators, geothermal energy, hydrogen fuel cells? Sorry, this is about as accurate as saying "it was freezing cold last winter, so that means global warming is a hoax invented by left wingers." Bush's own panel of appointed scientists concluded that it is a reality. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

If you simply accepted it, and then said "I don't care, I want to drive my V8 Chevy" then at least I'd praise you for having some honesty. However, burying your head in the sand and refusing to believe something because (some) people whose politics you disagree with have explained it is plain wilful ignorance

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Frontandcentre.

It is a true fact. WE get a LOT more than fuel and energy from petroleum, bascially anything we use and touch at home, work, etc uses petroleum based products.

To build those currently available alternate energy sources we NEED petroleum/oil as we don't have the technology to do without it. Atleast not on a large scale enough scale to make it viable and affordable.

So it boils down to how much petroleum/oil are we using to build something that will allow us to use less petroleum/oil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zen B - I quite agree with you. My protest was against Sarge's defeatist, cynical and sweeping statement. The level of dependence that we have on petroleum products now is precisely the reason why I'm opposed to the profligate policies that Bush has perpetuated and why major change is required. We have every reason to conserve oil, which is why legislation to restrict consumption and encourage further development of the alternatives is essential, and far more likely to have immediately beneficial results that simply giving oil companies carte blanche to drill anywhere they see fit.

Unless of course, you are one of the people who believes that global warming is "a hoax" and that oil will last forever. Fortunately, more and more people realise that neither of those things are true.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, might have misread you.

I don't think that global warming is hoax, not sure if it is made-made, man-enhanced or not. Don't think ti actually really matters which one it is.

But I think we are taking so many natural resources out that any change in the climate will have a big effect on the remaining stocks.

Yeah, maybe the earth warmed a few centuries ago but how many humans were around drawing on the natural reserves compared to now. Back than there was an abundance and a warming had a smaller effect if any.

Today we are not so lucky. And need to do everything to preserve and extend the currently available resources.

That is my view.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I should also say that global warming should be an issue that transcends politics. I wish that someone else rather than Al Gore had made "An Inconvenient Truth" - perhaps then right wingers wouldn't be trying to out-do each other to rebut the facts that Gore made.

Unfortunately, by definition, quite a number of the people who oppose Al Gore's politics won't be broad minded enough to separate the "truth" on global warming that he presented and what he personally stands for. I'm an optimist, however - I think ultimately most people are smart enough to look at the world around them and not draw conclusions on what politicians say, but on what science and common sense says.

Effectively, people like Sarge prefer to believe that vested economic interests and that famed climatologist ("ahem"), George W Bush, are correct rather than a large consensus of scientific opinion with a major canon of peer-reviewed research to back them up. I wonder why. Since these are the same people that believe in creationism, the fictional character "omnipotent God" (tm) and other such fairy tales, I suppose we shouldn't be terribly surprised by this

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As usual, pass the buck.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313 at 11:18 AM JST - 13th July

I was trained and understand the science behind global warming. Do you understand the science behind global warming? .... yes, we are making the planet hotter. Here, I'll even get you started: What absorbs and stores more heat, black top or a forest? The answer is obviously tarred black top, right? After all, it's darker and has more of an even surface which aids in absorption and prevents reflection and scattering, giving it a higher albedo. O.K. Moving on....

I'm wondering what this got to do with CO2 and out-of-control warming? You are talking about the heat island effect and that is obviously driven by the radiance of the sun.

If you are still lurking on this thread I have a point you might like to consider. If scientists are compiling global temperatures taken from thermometers in city centres (as they have been found doing) then naturally you will get higher than average temperatures. But if average global temperatures are taken from satellites wouldn't that show a more balanced reading? According to 4 temperature tracking satellites average global mean temperatures have dropped significantly since Jan. 2007. As I think Wolfpack mentioned, before this drop global temperatures had been basically levelling out since 1998.

Wolfpack:

I believe the warmest period was not in the 1930s, but in the middle ages. See the following url for global temps over the past 2000 years (based on ice core samples etc.) If you take this period into account (Al Gore and Co. do not) global warming starts to look exactly what it is, a hoax. Global temperatures were warmer then than what they are now. Good posts, btw.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005.html

To all you people who believe the global warming theory please consider what this scientist has to say. Collectively your support of policies directed at fighting global warming may, in fact, lead to millions of deaths from starvation if it is combined with the equally ridiculous policy on biofuels. The person who was interviewed in this video talks about the current global COOLING trend which is interesting because he is/was a policy analyst to the EU and UK govts. and a former UN environmental advisor.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xvO6oLYWAQI

Taka313:

Anyone who does not believe the earth is getting hotter has zero knowledge of thermal and atmospheric dynamics. ZERO. The thing is, it's not even that difficult to figure out. Anyone smart enough to pass 5th grade science can figure out that humans are making the planet hotter.

The debate is over, right! What an arrogant remark.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One of the best websites I've seen that expose the lies told by the global warming crowd: http://www.junkscience.com/

Notice that Taka313 & other libs get on their high horse and ride away as quickly as they can once people actually challenge their absurd assertions? Speaks volumes...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - Cutting CO2 emmissions will cut down on pollution, but stopping global warming??? What are people going to do, cork all the active volcanoes in the world? Turn the sun down a notch?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@frontandcentre - There are no alternatives to oil for the forseeable future. The other energy sources you mention (hydrogen fuel cells are energy carriers) do not have an adequate EROI to replace oil at our current level of industrialization.

http://www.sustainablescale.org/images/uploaded/EROI%20graph.jpg

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gyudon:

Notice that Taka313 & other libs get on their high horse and ride away as quickly as they can once people actually challenge their absurd assertions?

No, I think that they give up when people like you choose to ignore the large majority of mainstream scientific opinion. The suggestion that human activity is having an impact on the composition of the atmosphere has essentially been proven by science.

And why, please tell me, should only 'libs' believe ? Global warming is NOT a matter of political opinion, it's a matter of scientific fact.

The website you cite is the personal opinion of a Fox News columnist, i.e. the only type of person stupid enough to dispute the findings of a very large number of reputable scientists.

You are most entitled to believe ultra right wing agents provocateurs - I'll stick with the experts who actually know what they are talking about, not the flat-earthers or creationists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

frontandcentre:

Where is your global warming? China has had it's coldest winter for 100 years and there have been record snow levels across Northeast America. Antarctica has had record sea ice coverage (but not the Arctic.) It also snowed in Baghdad and other parts of the Middle East last winter which I believe was very rare, or even a first. Even the mouthpiece of the British Gov, the BBC, has had to admit that average global temperatures have not increased since 1998.

Mr Jarraud (World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general) told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree. This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. .... This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming. In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Carbon emissions have never driven climate change because as ice core samples show, carbon dioxide is a result of temperature increase and not a cause of it, sometimes lagging behind by as much as 800 years. The scientists who continue to support global warming are either ignorant of the facts or are compromised by funding etc. Furthermore, it is the bureaucrats on the UN international climate change panel and not the scientists who write up the final report which is then disseminated to the world's media.

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/co2_temperature.html

I recommend you take a quick look at what the 'experts' said were saying in the media back in the 60s and 70s about global cooling. These alarmists were given plenty of media coverage to tell us that all animal life in the sea would be extinct by 1979 and England would be underwater by the year 2000, and so and so forth.

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/apocalypse_then.html

Rather than comparing sceptics of CO2-driven global warming with people like George Bush (or even holocaust deniers, as some do) try to be open minded and not confuse general pollution with CO2. Human-caused global warming is the biggest scam going and is worth trillions, but not to you or I, unfortunately.

By the way, since you like peer reviewed papers here is a recent report which says:

Three top scientists have once again contradicted the claim that a “consensus” exists about man-made global warming with research that indicates CO2 emissions actually cool the atmosphere, in addition to another peer-reviewed paper that documents how the IPCC overstated CO2’s effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/two-peer-reviewed-scientific-papers-debunk-co2-myth.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jaybeeb:

There are no alternatives to oil for the forseeable future.

I recommend hemp! If you do a google search on hemp and "global warming" the first site at the top says ... It is possible to produce all of our energy with Cannabis Hemp. The unique growing properties of the plant make it the ideal crop for our energy needs. One acre of Cannabis Hemp can produce 1000 gallons of methanol in a single growing season. Any CO2 released from burning Cannabis Hemp would be the same CO2 the plant had already taken from the environment, creating what is called a closed carbon cycle.

If CO2 was really the problem gas it is made out to be don't you think we would have already converted to this amazing plant!? I believe the only reason cannabis become illegal back in the 30s (or thereabouts) was because there was too much money to be made in fossil fuels. The usual story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well said Weedkila! Consensus does not science make. Remember when most of the scientists of the world belived the world was flat?? I'll take even a shred of credible evidence over consensus any day. For those that think consensus is the more important factor, there are more and more people claiming the whole notion of man-made global warming is a farce.

CO2 is not a pollutant. If it was we'd all get poisoned from our own friggin' breath!

Biggest hoax in modern times.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gyudon,

Try a test - try breathing pure CO2 and see how long you last.

You really are coming up with silly arguments that discredit rational scepticism. Rational scepticism of the consensus is a very good thing, because it makes climatologists work harder to justify their theories with experimental observations and facts.

No credible sceptic would argue against global warming by simplistically stating that "last winter was very cold", just as stating that the considerable increase in the average global temperature over the past couple of decades is - on its own - irrefutable evidence of man-made global warming. It's a much more complex theory than that, and clearly beyond the comprehension of too many people.

Anyway, that's my last word on this subject. Like the polar ice caps in summer, increasingly the minority of people who no longer believe the proven facts are rapidly melting away.

FnC

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No credible sceptic would argue against global warming by simplistically stating that "last winter was very cold"

Nobody is. Look at global temperatures from satellite data or any of the other info/links that've been posted. You're being selective and trying to force the argument to fit your myth of perpetual warming based on CO2 - or the heat island effect, as your "expert on global warming" friend tried to mislead us on. Too bad that annoying things like facts get in the way!

Anyway, that's my last word on this subject. Like the polar ice caps in summer, increasingly the minority of people who no longer believe the proven facts are rapidly melting away.

"Like the polar ice caps in summer... are rapidly melting away"

Well, you're kind of right about the Arctic ice cap, but only to an extent. Here's another inconvenient truth for you.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) now believes that the new record for minimum sea ice coverage in the northern hemisphere was indeed reached on September 16th, 2007 as the summer melt season has appeared to have ended, and sea ice loss has either stopped, or reversed due to the change in season. Also, as of September 20th, the Northwest Passage is still open, but is starting to refreeze.

A different story in Antarctica.......

The coverage in sea ice in the southern hemisphere, around Antarctica is nearing a record maximum. Patrick Henry has been diligent in keeping us up to date on this story. If you look at the Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Chart, you can see that the latest data point is just shy of 16 million square kilometers.... (POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2007)

The above was posted just before the record cold winter of 2007-8 set in.

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/09/update_on_polar_ice_extremes.html

**Arctic sea ice back to its previous level, bears safe; film at 11** *In the late summer and early fall of 2007, there were a number of alarming media reports about the arctic sea ice melting. Additionally, there were predictions that it would not recover to its previous levels. But,* **we have this graph charting the rise and fall of arctic sea ice for the last 365 days, notice that the arctic sea ice is right back where it started at in February 2007. -- From the University of Illinois Cryosphere Today....** (February 2008) http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-back-to-its-previous-level-bears-safe-film-at-11/ So why was there record ice loss in the Arctic but record ice cover in Antarctica? Maybe it has something to do with undersea volcanoes in the Arctic region along with naturally occurring melting due to the sun and other factors. Volcanoes Erupt Beneath Arctic Ice http://www.livescience.com/environment/080627-sea-volcanoes.html Study finds Arctic seabed afire with lava-spewing volcanoes http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=81bb2fd3-63f1-476f-b0be-f48c0dc90304 FnWr

Gyudon:

You might want to check this 10 min. clip out. In one section the guy explains how the IPCC manipulated facts and figures to sell man-made global warming to the public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W-BePJOLbw&eurl=

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Try a test - try breathing pure CO2 and see how long you last.

Try a test - try breathing pure O2 and see how long you last.

This will improve the gene pool and decrease global warming.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Again, another side of 'global warming' that too many folks fear to acknowledge:

http://www.petitionproject.org

They just bury their collective little heads in the sand.

Me so sad.

USAR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well said again weedkila. Nobody said pure CO2 isn't toxic to humans, but that doesn't make it a pollutant. It's an important part of the atmosphere needed to support the planet's ecosystem. There is a mountain of evidence debunking the inane claims that global warming/cooling is caused by people. Total hoax.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites