If man is the leading catalyst behind global warming - and the jury is still out as to extent of man's impact - the true root cause is rapid population growth (each newborn needing a lifetime supply of factory-made and transported goods and services). If you look at a trend chart of the world's population, its recent "hockey stick" spike over the past few decades almost mirrors that infamous temperature one. There is a large swath of countries, particularly the already dirt-poor ones, that are doubling their populations every x years.

If the population continued at its very slow increase after 1900, would we have seen the same warming, same pollution, same need for oil, etc.? Likely not.

Personally, I don't see why parents need more than 2 kids anyhow, though I guess some find a chaotic zoo-like atmosphere of 4 or 5 kids running around appealing. There are still some rural, agrarian societies that want large families to work the fields, sort of like the Amish in the US, though these are the small minority. And it's true that simple birth control means are hard to come by (no pun intended) in third world nations. But I digress.

I know I'm straying a bit off topic here, but the bottom line is that as long as the planet keeps adding a billion new inhabitants at an increasingly frequent pace than in centuries past, it's going to end badly.

THAT is part of why I've posed my question to Machiavelli the way I have.

I'm tired of these here's where we are, here's where we're projecting to be and what will happen to us... Let's spend all we can to fix it... I want to know exactly what the plan is, because you can't "fix" our dependency on oil... you can't fix that even if the US were CAPABLE of going all solar, that the world would pick up our cheap ic engines and cheap oil and keep burning... WITHOUT many of our regulations.

Climate Change is an absolute reality. What the liberals don't want you know is that it is a reality and that it ALWAYS has been a reality. Twenty five thousand years ago, where I am currently sitting in Ohio was covered with 100+ feet glaciers and each of them melted long before the invention of the first SUV.

(08-08-2010 04:08 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  If man is the leading catalyst behind global warming - and the jury is still out as to extent of man's impact - the true root cause is rapid population growth (each newborn needing a lifetime supply of factory-made and transported goods and services). If you look at a trend chart of the world's population, its recent "hockey stick" spike over the past few decades almost mirrors that infamous temperature one. There is a large swath of countries, particularly the already dirt-poor ones, that are doubling their populations every x years.

If the population continued at its very slow increase after 1900, would we have seen the same warming, same pollution, same need for oil, etc.? Likely not.

Personally, I don't see why parents need more than 2 kids anyhow, though I guess some find a chaotic zoo-like atmosphere of 4 or 5 kids running around appealing. There are still some rural, agrarian societies that want large families to work the fields, sort of like the Amish in the US, though these are the small minority. And it's true that simple birth control means are hard to come by (no pun intended) in third world nations. But I digress.

I know I'm straying a bit off topic here, but the bottom line is that as long as the planet keeps adding a billion new inhabitants at an increasingly frequent pace than in centuries past, it's going to end badly.

Population is not a problem until a person cannot produce enough to live. At the moment we are way ahead of that curve. The biggest danger our success today is political policies that want to deter increased production. If production drops and population increases, then we could reach the problem point. Let man continue to progress, and there is no reason to believe we can't stay ahead of the curve.

So far, every single doomsday prediction had been false. All of them. Crackpot religions to scientists to cold war politicians - they have all been wrong. Why? Because man's drive to survive is stronger than the problems we have faced.

(08-08-2010 07:28 PM)Know Nothing Wrote:  Climate Change is an absolute reality. What the liberals don't want you know is that it is a reality and that it ALWAYS has been a reality. Twenty five thousand years ago, where I am currently sitting in Ohio was covered with 100+ feet glaciers and each of them melted long before the invention of the first SUV.

Same old ignorant comment by a rightie. If you actually read/listen to most scientists that think climate change is occuring you would know that most agree that climate does change natually but that we are speeding it up. Giving us less time to actually adapt to the changes.

(08-08-2010 08:09 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Jaworowski's works on ice cores were published in Jaworowski (1994, 1992) and in reports Jaworowski (1990, 1992). Jaworowski has suggested that the long-term CO2 record is an artifact caused by the structural changes of the ice with depth and by postcoring processes.

However, Jaworowski's views are rejected by the scientific community. Increases in CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the Vostok core are similar for the last two glacial-interglacial transitions, even though only the most recent transition is located in the brittle zone. Such evidence argues that the atmospheric trace-gas signal is not strongly affected by the presence of the brittle zone.[2] Similarly Hans Oeschger[3][dead link] states that "...Some of (Jaworowski's) statements are drastically wrong from the physical point of view".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Jaworowski


I like at the bottom of every page in Torch's publication they seperate Science and EIR. Torch wouldn't you feel a little better if you could find a credible source? I was reading your article and the part about the bubbles of CO2 changing did raise my eyebrow. It is the foundation of a lot of the things I've read. Now I didn't have to comb the archives of an "anti-Lyndon Larouche type" for those articles but none the less. Now imagine my frustrations when I google your boy "Zbigniew" and find out he's a crackpot. Dude, I need that 15 minutes of my life back. Pull a stunt like that again and I'm putting you on ignore.

Ham, I haven't forgot you. I've been real busy lately and want to put something together for an answer. Just need to find some time and I don't see it here anytime soon.

I give you "peer reviewed" science, and you quote Wikipedia at me? Haha.

(08-08-2010 04:08 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  If man is the leading catalyst behind global warming - and the jury is still out as to extent of man's impact - the true root cause is rapid population growth (each newborn needing a lifetime supply of factory-made and transported goods and services). If you look at a trend chart of the world's population, its recent "hockey stick" spike over the past few decades almost mirrors that infamous temperature one. There is a large swath of countries, particularly the already dirt-poor ones, that are doubling their populations every x years.

If the population continued at its very slow increase after 1900, would we have seen the same warming, same pollution, same need for oil, etc.? Likely not.

Personally, I don't see why parents need more than 2 kids anyhow, though I guess some find a chaotic zoo-like atmosphere of 4 or 5 kids running around appealing. There are still some rural, agrarian societies that want large families to work the fields, sort of like the Amish in the US, though these are the small minority. And it's true that simple birth control means are hard to come by (no pun intended) in third world nations. But I digress.

I know I'm straying a bit off topic here, but the bottom line is that as long as the planet keeps adding a billion new inhabitants at an increasingly frequent pace than in centuries past, it's going to end badly.

This already ends badly. This Malthusian catastrophe has been around for centuries now, and is already known to be fiction.

What's worse, is how close a libertarian (that's meant complimentary) comes to advocating genocide.

Even if you don't see why parents need more than 2 kids (although 2.1 is the commonly accepted replacement rate) the obvious question is, "So?" Others do like having more than 2 kids, and that's one of the more fundamental liberties that all human beings are entitled to.

Ah, I knew my post was going to be misinterpreted in every which way possible.

Quote:What's worse, is how close a libertarian (that's meant complimentary) comes to advocating genocide.

That's really what you got out of my post?

Here's the gist: If it's true that global temperature has accelerated in the past few decades and if it's true that man is at least partially responsible, you have to take into consideration that global population has also accelerated rapidly in the past few decades.

Is there a connection? I have no idea. Just throwing it out there. No calls for mass genocide.

Quote:Even if you don't see why parents need more than 2 kids (although 2.1 is the commonly accepted replacement rate) the obvious question is, "So?" Others do like having more than 2 kids, and that's one of the more fundamental liberties that all human beings are entitled to.

This was just a meaningless side opinion/commentary, even a little tongue in cheek. Nothing more, nothing less. My apologies if it came across as something more. No different than saying, "I don't know how some people sit around, chain smoke, and watch MTV and VH1 reality shows all day". Don't care if they do.

I'm not advocating a law or China-like child policy. People can have 12 kids if they want and I'll defend their right to do so. Whatever floats their boat. But it doesn't mean I can't make a snarky comment about it.

Also, just want to further clarify when I mentioned that things could go "badly"...

I'm not one of those Doomsdayers, and I'm not saying the End is near. Far from it. Just saying that when the poorest and most politically/socially unstable regions of the world are those adding a particularly ridiculous population growth, it sure raises the potential of further ugly news.

(08-09-2010 10:20 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Also, just want to further clarify when I mentioned that things could go "badly"...

I'm not one of those Doomsdayers, and I'm not saying the End is near. Far from it. Just saying that when the poorest and most politically/socially unstable regions of the world are those adding a particularly ridiculous population growth, it sure raises the potential of further ugly news.

not just unstable, but generally less concerned about the environment and with HUGE potential for growth in their per capita use of natural resources

(07-31-2010 11:47 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:Phytoplankton in retreat

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

Marine phytoplankton have a crucial role in Earth's biogeochemical cycles, and form the basis of marine ecosystems. Data from satellite remote sensing — available since 1979 — have provided evidence that phytoplankton biomass has fluctuated on the decadal scale, linked to climate forcing, but a few decades of data are insufficient to indicate long-term trends. Daniel Boyce and colleagues now put these results in a long-term context by estimating local, regional and global trends in phytoplankton biomass since 1899, based on a range of sources including measurements of ocean transparency with a device known as a Secchi disk, and shipboard analyses of various types. What emerges from the records is a century of decline of global phytoplankton biomass. The authors estimate that the decline of phytoplankton standing stock has been greatest at high latitudes, in equatorial regions, in oceanic areas and in more recent years. Trends in most areas are correlated significantly to increasing ocean warming, and leading climate indices.

News and Views
: Oceanography: Century of phytoplankton change
Phytoplankton biomass is a crucial measure of the health of ocean ecosystems. An impressive synthesis of the relevant data, stretching back to more than 100 years ago, provides a connection with climate change.

David A. Siegel & Bryan A. Franz

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v46...29-03.html

More copy and paste from 'do as I say, not as I do' Mach.

(08-22-2010 07:41 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(07-31-2010 11:47 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:Phytoplankton in retreat

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

Marine phytoplankton have a crucial role in Earth's biogeochemical cycles, and form the basis of marine ecosystems. Data from satellite remote sensing — available since 1979 — have provided evidence that phytoplankton biomass has fluctuated on the decadal scale, linked to climate forcing, but a few decades of data are insufficient to indicate long-term trends. Daniel Boyce and colleagues now put these results in a long-term context by estimating local, regional and global trends in phytoplankton biomass since 1899, based on a range of sources including measurements of ocean transparency with a device known as a Secchi disk, and shipboard analyses of various types. What emerges from the records is a century of decline of global phytoplankton biomass. The authors estimate that the decline of phytoplankton standing stock has been greatest at high latitudes, in equatorial regions, in oceanic areas and in more recent years. Trends in most areas are correlated significantly to increasing ocean warming, and leading climate indices.

News and Views
: Oceanography: Century of phytoplankton change
Phytoplankton biomass is a crucial measure of the health of ocean ecosystems. An impressive synthesis of the relevant data, stretching back to more than 100 years ago, provides a connection with climate change.

David A. Siegel & Bryan A. Franz

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v46...29-03.html

More copy and paste from 'do as I say, not as I do' Mach.

At least he cuts and pastes from reputable source. Not like you righties on this board.

Religion is only a part of life. Basically, I think we know what is good or bad for the beliefs that are himself.Religious belief as the presence of Jesus, God or the Hindu gods. It can not be proven by science. However, science is involved in Islam and Hinduism and I am not sure Christianity.

(08-22-2010 11:02 AM)RobertN Wrote:  At least he cuts and pastes from reputable source. Not like you righties on this board.

Roberta, you really are dumber than a bag of hammers.

(08-03-2010 03:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Mach...

A) what is your proposed solution
B) how much will it cost and what is the probability it will work
C) does your home have solar panels and/or do you drive a hybrid? At the very least, do you use "green" electricity?

I don't need a science lecture until you can answer parts one and two... and part three tells me how serious you PERSONALLY take the issue

Part A.

1st step

My proposed solution would START with ADMITTING we have a problem. It's not a science lecture. It's cold hard reality for an addict. Our oil addiction threatens our national security, our environmental health, and our way of life. The faster we come to this reality as a nation. THE BETTER off we all will be. How many people in this spin room would even admit we have a problem? I've read fairy tales from this group that oil is a renewable resource.

2nd step

Seperate oil and state.

Separate Oil and State. Every year, oil companies continue to “invest” millions of dollars in political candidates at every level of the U.S. government. In turn, elected officials dole out more than $20 billion a year to prop up fossil fuel projects internationally.
Every penny that our military spends on keeping the Starits of Hormuz operational will be tacked on to a barrel of oil sold in the US. NO MORE FREE RIDES for the oil industrial complex.


3rd step.
"Green the Grid"

I think one of the problems in the transition from fossil fuels to alternative energies is one political party is effected more than the other. Most of your blue areas around the country are concentrated in high density areas. Red, polar opposite. This inherently causes conflict. 5 dollar a gallon gasoline effects someone who lives in rural areas much more than an urban dweller. We must be conscious of this. We need to subsidize solar panels and windmills on houses. We need to provide incentives for plug in hybrids.

Step 3 A
We could also use ethanol as an alternative. This would further reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Owl 69 has done extensive research on ethanol as an alternative. His posts about ethanol and sugar cane from the S. America are excellent. I've been amazed how OPEC has kept gas prices around 75 dollars a barrel after the Gulf Oil Spill. They know they could kill the Golden Goose. Any extra input from Ethanol fosters that fear.


Costs.

I truly believe this. Any and all costs to start to wean our addiction to oil will pay off hundred fold. We need to start investing in our future.


Personal.

I drive a Toyota Matrix. It gets 36 miles to the gallon. My next car will be the same type.



I've been working on this on and off for the last couple of weeks. I wanted to do a better job Hambone. I'm building a house right now and it's been my main focus for months. I don't want to keep these thoughts in "draft" status any longer. You deserve a response. I wish I had more time to commit to an important subject.

(09-09-2010 01:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I drive a Toyota Matrix. It gets 36 miles to the gallon. My next car will be the same type.

Good for you. I drive an '09 Chevrolet Silverado Z71. Don't tell me how to live, lib. I can't pull a f'n boat with a damn Toy Yoda Matrix.

Moron................

he asked what I do personally......................

(09-09-2010 01:32 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Moron................

he asked what I do personally......................

Idiot...........

but you're trying to get what I drive legislated.

(09-09-2010 01:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(08-03-2010 03:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Mach...

A) what is your proposed solution
B) how much will it cost and what is the probability it will work
C) does your home have solar panels and/or do you drive a hybrid? At the very least, do you use "green" electricity?

I don't need a science lecture until you can answer parts one and two... and part three tells me how serious you PERSONALLY take the issue

Part A.

1st step

My proposed solution would START with ADMITTING we have a problem. It's not a science lecture. It's cold hard reality for an addict. Our oil addiction threatens our national security, our environmental health, and our way of life. The faster we come to this reality as a nation. THE BETTER off we all will be. How many people in this spin room would even admit we have a problem? I've read fairy tales from this group that oil is a renewable resource.

I'd agree that our dependence on foriegn sources of oil is a national security and economic problem. I believe it is an environmental one, though I'm not swayed by the apocolyptic predictions. That's not facts. I believe that you'd find WELL more than 50% of the country that would support the what (lessen our dependency on oil in general and imported oil in specific) so long as we didn't have to agree on the why. Why should we??

Quote:2nd step

Seperate oil and state.

Separate Oil and State. Every year, oil companies continue to “invest” millions of dollars in political candidates at every level of the U.S. government. In turn, elected officials dole out more than $20 billion a year to prop up fossil fuel projects internationally.
Every penny that our military spends on keeping the Starits of Hormuz operational will be tacked on to a barrel of oil sold in the US. NO MORE FREE RIDES for the oil industrial complex.

Ok... as long as we get rid of every other lobby as well. If you want to price oil at $15/gal... good luck with that. We also give billions to other energy projects... The free ride is to the US consumer. You want to raise the price, go ahead... and watch oil company profitability remain roughly the same. This isn't a solution... merely dogma. I'm sorry... I don't mean that to be insulting... but you're merely pionting fingers. If you would say something more like... raise the tax on gas to the point where we are indifferent between it an ethanol or electric cars and use that revenue to build nuclear plants to provide the electrical capacity and distribution to power the new generaton of cars... I'd go along. "ending the corporate welfare state" isn't a solution.

Quote:3rd step.
"Green the Grid"

I think one of the problems in the transition from fossil fuels to alternative energies is one political party is effected more than the other. Most of your blue areas around the country are concentrated in high density areas. Red, polar opposite. This inherently causes conflict. 5 dollar a gallon gasoline effects someone who lives in rural areas much more than an urban dweller. We must be conscious of this. We need to subsidize solar panels and windmills on houses. We need to provide incentives for plug in hybrids.

Incomplete... North/urban impacted much more by $5/bb heating oil than south/rural. How are NY'ers going to react to $5/minute cabs rather than $2.40 or whatever it is. I'd point out that the largest lobby against most sources of ethanol are Iowa corn farmers... and wind mills and solar panels are QUITE popular and common in rural America. If we're going to admit there's a problem... let's also admit that we're ALL part of it. We're already giving $5,000 subsidies on the new Chevy Volt... and they're projecting to sell 10,000 of them. WOW.

Again, I see you pointing fingers and not offering solutions. Yes, in the south we tend to drive longer and sometimes use heavier vehicles that are less efficient. We also don't use heating oil. In the north you do.... and you might drive smaller cars for shorter distances. What I'm getting at is that what works for YOU isn't necessarily a national, much less global solution. If someone regularly pulls a boat or a trailer, they need a bigger engine. If someone regularly drives I-10 or 20 with 18 wheelers, a Smart Car isn't going to keep you alive when they pass you, much less when they hit you. I used to drove an Excursion that got 14 MPG. I pulled a boat and carried band equipment plus the band. I drove less than 100 miles a week. I would regularly get chastised by people driving cars like yours that would take two or more to accomplish the same job, effectively doubling my MPG... putting me within spitting distance of most vehicles, and they generally drove much further.... Plus, I can guarantee your fuel economy would suffer hauling that much equipment and pulling boats. What I mean by that is, just because it works for you doesn't mean its the best solution for me. Unfortunately, it sounds like Rebel is simply saying "I have the right to be wasteful if I want to"... but I believe the reality is that he drives a vehicle that suits his purposes. The pious attitude (there was even a southpark about that) that many people have in this regard is counter-productive to the goal.

Quote:Step 3 A
We could also use ethanol as an alternative. This would further reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Owl 69 has done extensive research on ethanol as an alternative. His posts about ethanol and sugar cane from the S. America are excellent. I've been amazed how OPEC has kept gas prices around 75 dollars a barrel after the Gulf Oil Spill. They know they could kill the Golden Goose. Any extra input from Ethanol fosters that fear.

I agree with this 100%... but the gulf oil spill didn't impact production so why should it impact price? It is certainly true that Opec can cut oil prices to compete with ethanol... it is also true that oil prices will decline as and if we use more ethanol. It's called a market, and there is nothing the US can do to "fix" a global commodity market... which is why we need to have our OWN production, and not simply rely on foriegn oil... either as we adjust, or at the end when we are producing more than we need. What is the risk in becoming a net exporter of oil? I mean, we have military and commercial equipment that MUST be used for the next 30 years or more... designed to burn oil. If you came up with a solution tomorrow, it would still take a generation to put it into practice.

Quote:Costs.

I truly believe this. Any and all costs to start to wean our addiction to oil will pay off hundred fold. We need to start investing in our future.

I believe we are. You can argue we should do more... but the truth is that "more" isn't always better... sometimes it is just more... especially when it comes to R&D. You want more that IS better?? Build Nuclear plants, improve the grid and build ethanol refineries. I don't see those priorities on most "green" supporters agenda. Most of them say invest in things that don't yet work... like battery and solar panel technology.... which is important, but probably decades away from being meaningful... like having enough capacity to power a traditional home for a week of a storm, much less a high rise.

Quote:Personal.

I drive a Toyota Matrix. It gets 36 miles to the gallon. My next car will be the same type.

Good. My 4 door sedan gets 27mpg and my "sports" car gets about the same. I plan on replacing at least one of them and would LOVE to buy a Volt. I drove a Prius for a week while my car was in the shop and got about the same gas mileage... the set-up doesn't work well for my purposes. I think the volt set-up MIGHT work better. I believe I could drive it a week on a single charge and rarely burn a drop of gas. Of course, compare me to people who put 100 miles a day on their VW TDI's, and I'm already "greener", but I digress. I have solar suppliments to my power grid, but in Houston, the AC alone, much less the frequent weeks of overcast days means I'll never be able to go "off grid".

Quote:I've been working on this on and off for the last couple of weeks. I wanted to do a better job Hambone. I'm building a house right now and it's been my main focus for months. I don't want to keep these thoughts in "draft" status any longer. You deserve a response. I wish I had more time to commit to an important subject.

I appreciate that... seriously. I think the point is that we can agree on problems and we can agree on solutions... or at least directions... so why do we have to agree on "why" or who? I think that YOU can do some things better, and so can I... but they may not be the SAME things.

I think if you saw oil companies as suppliers of energy just like everyone else rather than these evil companies bent on destroying the environment (intentionally putting words in your mouth for effect) and focused on a) where it comes from and thus how much influence we have over it rather than the other way around... b) immediately available alternatives and how to fund them... and c) FUTURE developments... I think we could all :beer: I mean, there is probably NO WAY we will EVER burn zero oil. It is a cheap energy source with tons of applications.

Instead it seems like there are people/businesses that those on the left would like to punish... and people/businesses that those on the right would like to punish. I say SCREW that. Let's find the happy medium and do what we all generally agree on.

36 mpg? Bah. Try 119 mpg. Now that's fuel economy.

http://jalopnik.com/5628752/from-canada-...-of-diesel