How Al Gore celebrated "Earth Hour"

[Franc Rauscher]

Regarding NASA DATA, isn't it curious that the 1998 "Hottest year on record" Al claimed had a flaw not removed until he published his work?

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


Real scientists don't knowingly publish bad conclusions, nor do they continue to defend them when supporting information is in question.


roadster with a stick

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

Make your own conclussions but accept nothing presented on face value. Not even my arguments.

You should certainly not take anything in your link at face value. Legates works for the George Marshall Institute, an Exxon-funded right-wing think tank. You should also know that Legates' and Soon's paper was so bad that the editor of the journal that published it resigned in protest.

This is important because it will affect you life and the future of your children no matter who, Radmanly or me, is actually right.

Absolutely. The problem is getting worse while Exxon-funded liars delay solutions.

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

Regarding NASA DATA, isn't it curious that the 1998 "Hottest year on record" Al claimed had a flaw not removed until he published his work?

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


Real scientists don't knowingly publish bad conclusions, nor do they continue to defend them when supporting information is in question.


roadster with a stick

Except that Al was talking about the entire globe and that revision only applies to U.S. temperatures. Al was right, you are wrong.

[Franc Rauscher]

Originally Posted by radmanly

Sure, I did.



But he doesn't. He shovels a whole lot sophistry that anybody who actually knows anything about this topic can see right through. He's trying to argue that warming is caused by water vapor, not CO2. What he doesn't tell you is that water vapor is a feedback, not a driver, of climate. For the water vapor concentration to increase, something else has to warm the air first. This is why cold winter days are dry. That "something else" is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide warms the air which allows it to take up more water vapor which then warms the air further. Water vapor also has a very short atmospheric lifetime. Whatever additional water vapor you pump into the air (without a more persistent warming agent to maintain the warmth) winds up as dew on your lawn. His argument is a standard bit of denier BS. You can find further debunking of it here.

The funniest part of your video is when he breaks out the satellite measurements and claims there's no warming of the troposphere. That claim was debunked over 10 years ago when scientists discovered that the people running those satellites had failed to account for orbital decay (the satellite wasn't measuring the same slice of atmosphere consistently which imposed a spurious temperature trend). The National Academies of Science published a book on this topic that put an end to this line of argument almost a decade ago.

His northern hemisphere/southern hemisphere argument is crap because he fails to understand that the southern hemisphere is mostly ocean and the northern hemisphere is mostly land. Water and land don't warm at the same rates. What a moron!

Your "internet skeptic" is either ill-informed or purposely deceiving you. His arguments are old and busted. If there are some that you want to discuss further, then I'll be happy to but you should know that your guy is an idiot.



People with credentials aren't fooled by the crap in your video.
There are good reasons this guy's arguments have been rejected.



If you had read the science as carefully as you claim, you would have seen through the "internet skeptic's" hokum.

No He questions the DATA and it's conclusions. People with creditials? I thought you wanted to honestly deal with this.

Well, at least you actually reviewed it.

here Ya go.

Dr William Gray, 78 year old respected Hurricane expert says Al Gore is full of hooey.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environme...696238792.html

I suppose you will dismiss this guy also.

roadster with a stick

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

No He questions the DATA and it's conclusions.

His questions are based on some fundamental misunderstandings about the climate system.

People with creditials? I thought you wanted to honestly deal with this.

Are you calling me a liar?

here Ya go.

Dr William Gray, 78 year old respected Hurricane expert says Al Gore is full of hooey.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environme...696238792.html

I suppose you will dismiss this guy also.

William Gray is something of a kook. You can read an excellent article about him here. For a detailed debunking of his arguments, read this.

[Franc Rauscher]

Originally Posted by radmanly

Except that Al was talking about the entire globe and that revision only applies to U.S. temperatures. Al was right, you are wrong.

What is wrong with you? The data wasn't disputed, it was wrong!

Don't even get me started on the whole world thing. Northern and Southern Atmospheres mix very little. Why is the south getting dryer and cooler while the north is getting warmer and wetter? CO2 levels are the same throughout. The possible, but not proven, result of China and India going full tilt with fossil fuel burning.

Why is the hole in the southern Hemisphere so affected by the CF's and not the north? No answer from you on that.

And you didn't even research my question about the southern hole. I did and found my assumptions off but curiously close. It is not caused by chemicals but by the weakening of the magnetic field. Allowing the sun to strip it off. A phenomenon that has scientists puzzled and worried.

roadster with a stick

[Franc Rauscher]

Originally Posted by radmanly

His questions are based on some fundamental misunderstandings about the climate system.



Are you calling me a liar?



William Gray is something of a kook. You can read an excellent article about him here. For a detailed debunking of his arguments, read this.

Like I said,you simply discount the credentials. If they work for the government, a body of politicians we know we can trust, the scientist and the anylists are streaght arrow honest guys. But if they work for a think tank, operate independantly or god forbid on the pay roll of an oil company, they are kooks.
Ever wonder why an oil company would want to hire a climatologists? i did. It came to me that they have to make money. doing that requires being in front with the science, having technologies prepared for the future whether that future is dictated by politicians or mother earth. Same religion as Al gore and his group.

Difference is, If government guesses wrong, they can pass the costs on to taxpayers, set up a task force and find some smuck to take the blame.
Oil companies lose money, lose stock values and have to face their investors. Junk science doesn't work well for them. Reality.

No, not calling you a liar. Where did that come from? I'm calling you close minded.

Come back when you have an open mind.

franc

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

What is wrong with you? The data wsn't disputed, it was wrong!

1998 was the warmest year on record FOR THE GLOBE. 1934 was the warmest year on record IN THE US. You are confusing two different measurements. When Al said 1998 was the warmest year on record, he was right because he was talking about THE GLOBE, not just the US.

Don't even get me started on the whole world thing. Northern and Southern Atmospheres mix very little.

The oceans mix a lot and oceans carry heat better than air.

Why is the south getting dryer and cooler while the north is getting warmer and wetter?

The south isn't getting cooler.

CO2 levels are the same throughout.

That doesn't mean that water and land will warm at the same rates.

Why is the hole in the southern Hemisphere so affected by the CF's and not the north? No answer from youon that.

Yes, there was. See my post #27 in this thread.

And you didn't even research my question about the southern hole. I did and found my assumptions off. It is not caused by chemicals but by the weakening of the magnetic field. A phenomenon that has scientists puzzled and worried.

There is more than one way to destroy ozone. A weakening magnetic field does not get CFCs off the hook. They are still the main cause of the ozone hole.

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

Like I said,you simply discount the credentials.

I gave you a link that dismantles his arguments. It says nothing about his credentials.

If they work for the government, a body of politicians we know we can trust, the scientist and the anylists are streaght arrow honest guys. But if they work for a think tank, operate independantly or god forbid on the pay roll of an oil company, they are kooks.

You seem eager to assume that scientists are corrupted by government funding yet never by oil company money. Why is that?

Ever wonder why an oil company would want to hire a climatologists? i did. It came to me that they have to make money. doing that requires being in front with the science, having technologies prepared for the future whether that future is dictated by politicians or mother earth.

Or they hire scientists to mislead the public just like the tobacco industry did for decades.

Oil companies lose money, lose stock values and have to face their investors. Junk science doesn't work well for them. Reality.

Junk science works very well for them. If they can shovel enough baloney into the soft heads of gullible conservatives, they can forestall any action that might fix the problem and cost them money.

Come back when you have an open mind.

Sounds like somebody's getting mad! My mind is always open to fact-based arguments. Unfortunately, yours are built on factual and conceptual errors.

[radmanly]

For your reading pleasure, here's a piece that absolutely destroys Legates' arguments.

[Franc Rauscher]

Originally Posted by radmanly

For your reading pleasure, here's a piece that absolutely destroys Legates' arguments.

Help me out here, who is Legates? My internet Skeptic?


And no, not getting mad, Just frustrated by the same arguments and tactics.

As to CFC's my big issue is that many useful uses besides paint propulsion, were lost over the fear. As a firefighter and now and asmatic, I miss several useful products. They still haven't found a substitute for flaming out jet engines in flight.

Hysteria causes an overshoot in the politcal arena. We must be careful. Al Gore and his religion says we will melt the north pole in 23 years. Even credible pro warming scientist say that is hooey.
They said it would take 50 years before Lake Erie would support fish again. Took less than ten. Glad we did it but the hysteria was not neccesary.

Concern for the environment has led us to be better stewards of our planet. But I suggest we tread slowly. Any Expert who doesn't listen to critics and won't subject his "science" to empirical tests should be suspect. Al Gore won't take questions at his Speeches for which he gets well paid to be an Expert.

Cause enough for me to doubt it and any politician who runs his campaign the same way. It is frustrating to me to discuss this with someone, seemingly so intelllegent, who is so accepting of the argument.

You are right, I don't care much for Al Gore. He challenged the 2000 election, which was fine. It was close. But he didn't play fair in trying to determine the outcome. Counting "chads" but not counting votes from sevicemen that arrived a fews hours late. Counting votes in Miami and Broward County but not elsewhere in the state. Bad form.

Later he discounted the validity of the guy who won. Bad form. After swearing that Saddam had WMD's he said no he didn't. Bad form
He said of GWBUSH "he lied to us and played on our fears." after which he proceeded to play on ours to meet his ends regarding Global warming. I know he a politician and that's how they play the game.

You, should keep that in mind.


roadster with a stick

[Franc Rauscher]

Originally Posted by radmanly

I gave you a link that dismantles his arguments. It says nothing about his credentials.



You seem eager to assume that scientists are corrupted by government funding yet never by oil company money. Why is that?

I never said never, only that when a private company pays for science before they invest, it had better be good science or they lose. Government doesn't answer to the same risk. Why is that?



Or they hire scientists to mislead the public just like the tobacco industry did for decades.

Tobacco companies provided the science the politicians wanted, especially politicians from tobbacco producing states. In the end the politicians still ignored the science except to use it to force higher "Sin Taxes' on consumers. Despite having real science exposed on the subject, we still manufacture and sell cigarettes in this country. WHY IS THAT?

I will gladly connect this corruption to your "Priest of Mother Earth" if you like.


Junk science works very well for them. If they can shovel enough baloney into the soft heads of gullible conservatives, they can forestall any action that might fix the problem and cost them money.

To whom would they shovel it. Stock holders need their companies to make sound decisions about the future. You missed entirely the issue. If the globe is warming and it is because of the product they sell, oil campanies need to explore new energy sources that don't instead of making investments in a lost cause. Name a steamship company that survived the desiel engine. Name an Airline that competed with jets using prop engines. recognizing trends in the market is part and parcel to surviving change. but, if your research suggests the science driving the change is corrupt, what is the point in hiding that?

And for the record, I have it well documented, my head is hardly soft.



Sounds like somebody's getting mad! My mind is always open to fact-based arguments. Unfortunately, yours are built on factual and conceptual errors.

The last one is cute. You causually refute my credentials and those who I propose have valid reasons to question the science. Never once arguing the logic of the science. Anyone who dosen't look at the suggested links may find it easy to agree with you or me most likely based on their original positions. No one learns a thing.

In fact, you cleverly dissected my writings batting each line down one by one making it impossible to refute your conclusions. Because you have none. Only well prepared canned responses. No one who is causualy involved in this topic is that well prepared. Suggesting you may be more than you claim.In other words, your goal is a win or lose argument instead of the presentation of ideas in a forum setting.

Now, I have to go back to work in the morning. Not having time to proceed on this for about a week as I will be traveling until May1st. My time on the Forum will be sporatic.

That should give you time to reload and go at my arguments, and my scientists, again. Later.

And answer my first question which was, why shouldn't Al Gore walk the walk?


roadster with a stick

[dwightdmagee]

I've been tracking this thread for the last several days out of a passing interest - scrappy dialogue on a topical subject to say the least. I just spent the last hour, after a nice nap, re-reading the length of the thing and I started quite literally to again hurt. It's like the argument of creation with lots of charts thrown in. Went down stairs and took some pills ...

Mankind is new and recent thing on this planet of ours. The rock itself has been around for some length of time (an incomprehensible length of time) and the stuff that has occurred on its surface, since stuff actually started to occur on its surface, is yet barely measurable in terms of time. Yes, this newcomer, man, is burning something he found laying around just beneath the surface of the planet to keep him warm, and it is better than dead trees. It keeps him warm, lights his home and fuels his transportation from one side of the globe to the next. Carbon - the fuel and energy of all living things in one way or another - stored up in not-so-tidy layers of fossil-life oil, gases and coal.

The larger story is probably not how life (contemporary life) is currently burning that carbon as fuel, but how the deposits of fossil fuels came to be in the first place. This life-turned-to-fuel was created by the pressures and temperatures of the 'rock' burying life (ancient life) that existed on the face of the earth millions and millions of years ago ... fairly recent occurrences, in rock-time. And such a volume of living material to die all at once and turn to coal is unimaginable. What happened? Is there a third layer of life? Will we become the top layer, all scraped into piles? Another story and another discussion.

And then there are the comings and goings of the ice ages - a more local and current event, if you will - and the thing we now fear. I always marveled as a kid at the ink-black loam of the Iowa prairies, knowing how it got there but not why.

But back to the smaller story. No doubt that the burning of this carbon by modern man has and is releasing old mountains of that once-living mass back into the atmosphere. No doubt that this spewing of CO2 back into the system via E=mc2 is affecting what is occurring on the surface of the earth. Al Gore is right. The data says so. His motives for his preaching may have at one time been well-intentioned, but, by his life styles, have since been debased by man's greed. No big deal. And the Deniers can be proven to be right, particularly by the oil-man and the coal miner, for the same reasons. The science, the data, of it all is there to be manipulated to fit. Again, no big deal.

My view is, man by his nature and wit has discovered that he can burn fossil fuels toward a variety of pleasures. And he will burn all of it. He will burn all of it and at great profit to those that are properly connected. And that, truly, is another story. But he will burn all of it. He will not stop and he is not likely to even slow down in the consumption of that ancient life-turned-to-fuel because Al or people like Al suggest otherwise. Man's greed says it will be so. But this, even the burning of all of it, remains a barely measurable zit in the scheme of sun spots, and the vast ocean carbon sink, the asteroid, or an axis tilt ... all of which do create new ice ages and new deserts and new shore lines. I think I'll have another cigarette.

The real question is for our scientists and statists is to calculate, postulate, ideologize, theorize, or what-ever, what will happen to the surface of this rock, as man burns all of it, and simply be done with it! Great wealth to be made, nations to die and new ones to be born, if one plans on living long enough. My un-schooled guess is that we've probably found half of it and that we will burn all of it within seventy-five years. An eon of old life up in a tiny little puff of smoke.

The data is true. The science is corrupted. What will be the real impact?

BTW: I live on the water in Sarasota, so I'd like to be one of the first to know.

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

Help me out here, who is Legates? My internet Skeptic?

See your post #39.

As to CFC's my big issue is that many useful uses besides paint propulsion, were lost over the fear.

No, they were lost because they destroy stratospheric ozone.

Hysteria causes an overshoot in the politcal arena. We must be careful.

Putting our heads in the sand can cause us to undershoot.

Al Gore and his religion says we will melt the north pole in 23 years. Even credible pro warming scientist say that is hooey.

As recently as this month, NOAA agreed with Gore:

Ice-Free Arctic Summers Likely Sooner Than Expected

Summers in the Arctic may be ice-free in as few as 30 years, not at the end of the century as previously expected.

They said it would take 50 years before Lake Erie would support fish again. Took less than ten. Glad we did it but the hysteria was not neccesary.

That kind of thinking is pretty dangerous, too. You need to look at each case individually.

Concern for the environment has led us to be better stewards of our planet. But I suggest we tread slowly.

Why? Whose interest does that serve? It certainly won't get us cleaner air or water faster. It only helps polluters.

Any Expert who doesn't listen to critics and won't subject his "science" to empirical tests should be suspect. Al Gore won't take questions at his Speeches for which he gets well paid to be an Expert.

Al Gore is not a scientist nor does he claim to be. He's not obligated to allow his public appearances to become a soapbox for cranks. I doubt Neil Armstrong takes questions from people who think the moon landing was faked.

Cause enough for me to doubt it and any politician who runs his campaign the same way.

Yet you effortlessly accept any deception put out by the oil companies and their right-wing pollution apologists.

You are right, I don't care much for Al Gore.

His being right and your disliking him are not mutually exclusive.

He challenged the 2000 election, which was fine. It was close. But he didn't play fair in trying to determine the outcome. Counting "chads" but not counting votes from sevicemen that arrived a fews hours late.

Gore did allow those ballots to be counted. Conservatives were exercising a double standard. They wanted strict adherence to the letter of the law for most voters but special treatment for absentee military ballots.

Later he discounted the validity of the guy who won. Bad form.

Al did get more votes.

After swearing that Saddam had WMD's he said no he didn't. Bad form

So Al was right.

He said of GWBUDH "he lied to us and played on our fears." after which he proceeded to play on ours to meet his ends regarding Global warming. I know he a politician and that's how they play the game.

Global warming is real. Saddam's WMDs were not.

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

The last one is cute. You causually refute my credentials and those who I propose have valid reasons to question the science. Never once arguing the logic of the science.

Reread my post. I did argue the "internet skeptic's" points. I raised three specific objections:

1. He misunderstands the role of water vapor in the climate system. It is a feedback, not a driver, of climate.
2. He fails to understand that oceans and continents heat at different rates. (Water has a relatively high specific heat.)
3. He uses discredited MSU satellite data to make false statements about tropospheric warming.

There are many other errors in that video but I thought three were enough to get us started.

Anyone who dosen't look at the suggested links may find it easy to agree with you or me most likely based on their original positions. No one learns a thing.

Are you telling me you don't read my links? As you didn't who Legates is, I'm beginning to think you don't read your own.

In fact, you cleverly dissected my writings batting each line down one by one making it impossible to refute your conclusions.

I prefer the point-counterpoint style. That way you know exactly which of your points I'm addressing.

Because you have none. Only well prepared canned responses. No one who is causualy involved in this topic is that well prepared.

You're not the first person I've had this conversation with.

Suggesting you may be more than you claim.In other words, your goal is a win or lose argument instead of the presentation of ideas in a forum setting.

There is no winning or losing here. No minds will be changed. You hate Al Gore and nothing I say is going to punch through that hate and enlighten your understanding of modern climate science. I'm just here to have a little fun.

Now, I have to go back to work in the morning. Not having time to proceed on this for about a week as I will be traveling until May1st. My time on the Forum will be sporatic.

Have a safe trip.

That should give you time to reload and go at my arguments, and my scientists, again.

Done.

And answer my first question which was, why shouldn't Al Gore walk the walk?

He does. His electricity comes from solar and wind. He owns a hybrid car and his house is full of low-energy fluorescent bulbs.

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by dwightdmagee

And then there are the comings and goings of the ice ages - a more local and current event, if you will - and the thing we now fear.

I'm not really worried about the next ice age. It's not due for another 15,000 years at least.

My view is, man by his nature and wit has discovered that he can burn fossil fuels toward a variety of pleasures. And he will burn all of it. He will burn all of it and at great profit to those that are properly connected. And that, truly, is another story. But he will burn all of it. He will not stop and he is not likely to even slow down in the consumption of that ancient life-turned-to-fuel because Al or people like Al suggest otherwise. Man's greed says it will be so.

That's a rather grim view and I'm sad to say I agree with it.

But this, even the burning of all of it, remains a barely measurable zit in the scheme of sun spots, and the vast ocean carbon sink, the asteroid, or an axis tilt ... all of which do create new ice ages and new deserts and new shore lines.

It's been enough to raise the average global surface temperature almost 1 degree C in the last 150 years (with the majority of that warming happening in the last 60-70 years). When you think about the amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature of the whole globe, it's a staggering amount.

I think I'll have another cigarette.

What kind of cigarettes are you smoking?

The real question is for our scientists and statists is to calculate, postulate, ideologize, theorize, or what-ever, what will happen to the surface of this rock, as man burns all of it, and simply be done with it! Great wealth to be made, nations to die and new ones to be born, if one plans on living long enough.

If we burn all of it, we'll basically cook ourselves. The planet is having a tough time carrying the 6.5 billion people on it already. Fresh water is getting scarce. Pollution in the most densely populated parts of the globe is getting worse. If you add the stress of high heat and all of the problems it brings, it could have a devastating impact on human civilization which would be far more costly than the carbon taxes that the right is shrieking about now.

BTW: I live on the water in Sarasota, so I'd like to be one of the first to know.

You will be:

Sea level rise could bust IPCC estimate

Sea level rises could bust official estimates – that's the first big message to come from the climate change congress that kicked off in Copenhagen, Denmark, today.

Researchers, including John Church of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, presented evidence that Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice fast, contributing to the annual sea-level rise. Recent data shows that waters have been rising by 3 millimetres a year since 1993.

Church says this is above any of the rates forecast by the IPCC models. By 2100, sea levels could be 1 metre or more above current levels, he says. And it looks increasingly unlikely that the rise will be much less than 50 centimetres.

[Franc Rauscher]

Originally Posted by radmanly

See your post #39.



No, they were lost because they destroy stratospheric ozone.



.

One example of why I am disengaging, You took what I said out of context, I said because of the complete ban, we lost many useful products. There is a cost benefit analysis that should supercede blind aquiessence to evironmental positions. The fact is we need the safety of fire suppression. The units use very little of the Halon material and only when needed. There is no current substitiute.
Propelling my asthma medication is currenly done with less that effective results. A personal loss more than inconvenient.

Curiously, the Halon product, cannot be manufactured in the US. But, it can be imported. So, Dupont has a plant in China and countries that have not banned Halon and related CFC's are free to purchase them.

I was involved with a fire extinguisher company that made huge profits collecting the Halon from old systems, charging to do it, and then reselling it back to the original owner with a hefty Federal tax applied. Fattest cow I ever saw and we had Uncle Sams blessing. CFC's removed from the environment = 0

The largest contribution to the atmosphere of CFC's came from refrigeration systems. Mostly in cars. There have been successful replacements which the tree huggers haven't found a problem with, so far.

By simply contexting my statement and batting what remained "out of hand" you nuetered the argument. Typical High school debate tactic.


I don't hate Al Gore, again you pulled out of context. I don't trust him. You cut that part out. Reasons given are certainly debatable but hardly illogical.

As yet you haven't explained why he doesn't have to walk the walk.

Carbon credits don't do it. They don't reduce the carbon footprint just transfer it to someone else willing to pay for the right to continue to pollute.

A great example of government getting involved is the recent tax credit that incentivises the paper industry to use less fossil fuel. Inacted during the Bush 43 administration, it gives tax credit to those paper mills that mix Bio fuels with their fossil fuels. Many plants had gone completely Bio (using wood chips later bagged and sold for mulch) So to Qualify for the tax credit, paper mills have had to add fossil fuels to their mix.

The program was to cost the taxpayers $65 million per year. Chump change in todays federal budget.

Only it didn't work out that way. Last year, the US government paid out $6.6 billion, yes billion with a B, to companies like International Paper. In one case an International Paper mill, that had gone completely bio, simply added fossil to qualify. Made them $71 million in one month of operation.

I'm sure lobbyiest were involved from the paper industry. I'm sure eviromentalist lobbiest were involved. i'm sure the congress was trying to do the right thing. Taxpayers paid for it and it did nothing to reduce use of fossil fuel. In fact it did the opposite.

Now, in the business community, when you make that kind of mistake in judgment, the company loses. If I plan to spend, and justify thru income gained, $65,000 on a capital project and it costs 1,000 times as much ie; $65,000,000. I'm out of business.

Did the government step back after the industry swindled them? No, they wrote the checks and passed the costs on to the tax payers.

That's you and me.

Now lets look at SC Johnson Co. As a consumer products producer, they determined a product PR gain by going green. Not because of tax incentives as much as gaining market share.

At first I thought their commercials were as valid as the Walmart "Made in America" campaign. Later proven a PR lie, it has been dropped. But the Johnson folks were real. They walked the walk. I and many buy their products and as a result their investment has paid off. To their bottom line and to the enviroment.

Good for them
Good for the taxpayer
Good for the consumer.

Good for the environment.

My point is that our government is populated by people who need to please the current mob mentallity to get re-elected. Doing a good job of selling a fearful concept to get support is their modus opporundi. Bush43 did it to sell a war and the left villified him for it. The left does it to sell a cabon footprint, Cap and trade scheme which, like the war in Iraq is ill conceived and will cost the taxpayers twice. Once at the market and once on April 15th. And later if we find out the fear mongers were wrong, we will have to spend and tax to fix that too. Because, in the end, WE are the government.

How about in time, we take our time. The planet is not going redline speed to H*ll. Geological history shows very few times that climate change was abrupt.( less than 200 years) And never because an organism on the planet effected it's balance.

When scientist both pro and con can agree on a strategy, I'll trust them. But never will I trust a politician who says, "you must sacrifice" as he gets in a limo to run to the airport.

A preacher who calls me to Jesus wearing a $1,200 suit gets no support from me either.


roadster with a stick

BTW when was Al right? when he said Saddam had them and was a serious threat or when he said (after we couldn't find them) Saddam didn't. Such brilliance doesn't inspire me.

[radmanly]

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

One example of why I am disengaging, You took what I said out of context, I said because of the complete ban, we lost many useful products. There is a cost benefit analysis that should supercede blind aquiessence to evironmental positions.

You need to consider who pays the costs and who gets the benefits. If I pay all of the costs and you get all of the benefits, then cost/benefit analysis is not an appropriate way to resolve an issue.

The fact is we need the safety of fire suppression. The units use very little of the Halon material and only when needed. There is no current substitiute.

Last I checked, we still have fire extinguishers.

Curiously, the Halon product, cannot be manufactured in the US. But, it can be imported. So, Dupont has a plant in China and countries that have not banned Halon and related CFC's are free to purchase them.

That's a weakness of the treaty, not an argument against the ban.

I was involved with a fire extinguisher company that made huge profits collecting the Halon from old systems, charging to do it, and then reselling it back to the original owner with a hefty Federal tax applied. Fattest cow I ever saw and we had Uncle Sams blessing. CFC's removed from the environment = 0

Again, that's a weakness in the system, not an argument against the ban.

As yet you haven't explained why he doesn't have to walk the walk.

I explained that he DOES walk the walk.

Carbon credits don't do it. They don't reduce the carbon footprint just transfer it to someone else willing to pay for the right to continue to pollute.

Not quite. Carbon credits are used to reduce carbon from other sources. If somebody buys a carbon credit and that money is used to plant trees that absorb CO2 or build a solar plant that emits no CO2, it's a net reduction in atmospheric CO2.

My point is that our government is populated by people who need to please the current mob mentallity to get re-elected.

You have legitimate issues with the ways these programs were implemented. Those are not arguments against the need to solve the underlying problems.

Doing a good job of selling a fearful concept to get support is their modus opporundi. Bush43 did it to sell a war and the left villified him for it. The left does it to sell a cabon footprint, Cap and trade scheme which, like the war in Iraq is ill conceived and will cost the taxpayers twice. Once at the market and once on April 15th. And later if we find out the fear mongers were wrong, we will have to spend and tax to fix that too. Because, in the end, WE are the government.

What if the "fear mongers" are right? The IPCC estimates for warming are conservative. Things are actually likely to be worse than the IPCC projects.

How about in time, we take our time. The planet is not going redline speed to H*ll.

We are rapidly approaching "tipping points" where the damage has accumulated to such an extent that it cannot be reversed in reasonable time at reasonable cost.

Geological history shows very few times that climate change was abrupt.( less than 200 years) And never because an organism on the planet effected it's balance.

There's never been an organism like us. At no time in the history of the planet have 6.5 billion organisms dug up old carbon and released it into the atmosphere.

BTW when was Al right? when he said Saddam had them and was a serious threat or when he said (after we couldn't find them) Saddam didn't. Such brilliance doesn't inspire me.

Al Gore was right when he said the Iraq War was a mistake. He criticized Bush for not building a real coalition before the invasion and said it was a needless distraction from the war against Al Qaida. Gore did believe Saddam had WMDs but, as an ex-Veep, Gore did not have access to the same intelligence as Bush did in 2002. Ultimately, the Iraq war was Bush's policy and he deserves all of the blame or credit for its outcome.

[dwightdmagee]

Radmanly, I've had but a brief chat with you and your point-counter-point has already become dreary. No great need to reply. Have a nice day.

[radmanly]

That's a shame because I thoroughly enjoyed your post.