Strange how I haven't heard anyone say this...

[Ronny]

No but I do believe they are munipulating the weather!

www.weatherwars.info

The Russians and the USA have technology to munipulate the weather. It was created by Tesla and now they are taking a lot further.

Believe it or not!

[Ronny]

You know what I think?
George Bush himself was sitting in some control room in the White House basement, and he created Katrina and Rita. Then, he decided to go and smother some puppies under a mattress, and when he was bored with that, he went and stole some money from an orphanage.

I DO believe you may be on to something here!

[IsaacKuo]

Actually conservation is the easiest and one of the best things we can do. A large amount of emissons are from cars, and better fuel efficiency can have powerful effects on output and energy use. For example from 1979 to 1986, GDP grew 20 percent while total energy use fell by 5 percent. The reason why? We were more efficent, especially with our cars.

I recall there was a study that determined that Federally mandated fuel efficiency standards on NEW CARS ALONE could reduce total US oil consumption by as much as we import from the entire Middle East, within about 8 years (with the reductions getting even greater after that as older cars get replaced with new cars). This was assuming relatively modest fuel efficiency standards acheivable without any novel technology--not even hybrids.

I wish I could remember enough about the details of that study to find a reference.

[redbeard]

my post remains unremarked on......

This is a complex issue, so I hope you don't mind my weighing in with my rather lengthy thoughts here.

While it is likely true that the consensus of opinion is that warming is occurring, it is worth noting that in the late '70s the consensus was just the opposite. Then the fear was we were headed for an ice age. Even scientists have a hard time not over weighting the last few years of data when looking at a series that spans over a hundred years. Then there remains the question of how much warming is human caused (the earth isn't the only planet in our system that seems to be warming), and more importantly what our options are (and at what cost) to mitigate any human effects.

To me the most interesting thing about global warming theory is the remedies embraced (and those not embraced) by the most vocal proponent organizations. If I truly believed we faced global disaster, I'd be willing to entertain solutions which would otherwise be unpalatable to me. I personally use this as a barometer for the sincerity of the movement as a whole (but not individuals). If groups like the Sierra Club start suggesting increased logging of lodgepole pine and like forests to avoid having aging stands burn and release CO2, then I'll take notice. But when groups preach doomsday scenarios and then coincidentally suggest as the remedy the same policies they have always pushed for, I tend to find them less than convincing. To be clear, I'm not questioning your sincerity or anyone else here, just pointing out why the organized groups seem that way to me.

I also find Kyoto more than a little troubling. Even it's proponents say it would have little impact, and that is assuming it works as planned. Moreover, I fail to see how transferring the most energy intensive economic activity from nations with strict environmental laws to those with next to none would help the planet at all (this is what Kyoto would really do). Does the earth care what political jurisdiction CO2 or other emissions come from? For example, if Kyoto were implemented, what would stop Mexico from burning it's oil, and using the energy released to generate Hydrogen. It could then sell it's Hydrogen to the US, for use as a "clean fuel". Or moreover, what would stop the US from selling coal to Mexico to do the same with? This is one glaring example, but even if you closed this one loophole there are hundreds of thousands of ways the same kind of thing would happen, albeit less obvious. Until there is a global treaty on the table which covers every country (and doesn't exempt the 2nd largest consumer of oil), with serious provisions for detecting and stopping cheating (if you aren't prepared to go to war over it, how serious are you?) I really don't see the point in a treaty.

I'd personally like to see more fuel efficient vehicles, simply because I don't like to spend a lot of money on gas. Both of our cars are stick shifts, with minimal options for this reason. I'm pleased to see the trend already turning to more efficient vehicles (regardless of size). I just hope the trend remains in place when gas prices come back down.

[Ronny]

BLAH BLAH BLAH...

Global warming is nothing but a made up bunch of MALARKEY by people attempting to cover up what is REALLY going on!

People... geez... GET A CLUE!!

The weather is being messed with by means of a machine that was originally created by Tesla. They have taken it much further and Katrina and Rita were both brought about by their little creation.

Don't believe it?? All you have to do is PULL YOUR HEAD OUT!! And STOP listening to the mainstream media.

www.weatherwars.info

Just like 911 was a fraud and created by our lovely government! What a SCAM our little QUACK-Bush is pulling behind our backs! With the war in Iraq... you'd think people would have a dang clue by now!!!

Listen to this interview:
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/111104deagle1.htm
Watch this video:
http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/...railer_new.wmv
www.infowars.com/

[Vergil83]

my post remains unremarked on......

This is a complex issue, so I hope you don't mind my weighing in with my rather lengthy thoughts here.

No, I love it

While it is likely true that the consensus of opinion is that warming is occurring, it is worth noting that in the late '70s the consensus was just the opposite. Then the fear was we were headed for an ice age.

I think has been widely over emphasised. It is true that the popular press played up the "global cooling". For example
8 Aug 1974 NY Times Climate Changes Endanger Worlds Food Output
21 May 1975 NY Times Scientists ponder why world's climate is changing; A major cooling widely considered to be inevitable
April 28, 1975 Newsweek The Cooling World
However, actual scientific papers tended to be much more reserved. For example

"Climatic change has been a subject of intellectual interest for many years. However, there are now more compelling reasons for its study: the growing awareness that our economic and social stability is profoundly influenced by climate and that man's activities themselves may be capable of influencing the climate in possibly undesirable ways. The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know

{Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action - U.S. National Academy of Sciences)

The Discovery of Global Warming

more importantly what our options are (and at what cost) to mitigate any human effects.

I agree with that.

To me the most interesting thing about global warming theory is the remedies embraced (and those not embraced) by the most vocal proponent organizations. If I truly believed we faced global disaster, I'd be willing to entertain solutions which would otherwise be unpalatable to me. I personally use this as a barometer for the sincerity of the movement as a whole (but not individuals). If groups like the Sierra Club start suggesting increased logging of lodgepole pine and like forests to avoid having aging stands burn and release CO2, then I'll take notice. But when groups preach doomsday scenarios and then coincidentally suggest as the remedy the same policies they have always pushed for, I tend to find them less than convincing. To be clear, I'm not questioning your sincerity or anyone else here, just pointing out why the organized groups seem that way to me.

Well I don't think the Sierra Club would ever propose that because trees are very important to the planet for other reasons. I would tend to agree with the total disaster sentiment. There has been far to much doomsday preaching. The earth is not going to die. The human race is not going to die. The real problems are issues that make leading our lives as we currently do a lot harder. For example lets say global climate changes causes increases in hurricanes (not super hurricanes, but just normal ones). The question isn't "will this kill millions of people?" but will this affect where development can occur? How will this affect normal transportation routes and costs? How will this affect certain industries? etc.......

I also find Kyoto more than a little troubling. .

I agree that Kyoto has major problems (little effect since the US only has to cut emissions by 6%, 8% for Europe, 6% Japan etc....). I think the main power of Kyoto is the effect it would have on people's outlook. It would first bring the issue to people's attention. Secondy, and more importantly it would signal the urgency of the issue. Look at how people think about hydrogren cars. It is similar to how people thought about personal computers in 1954. The see them in almost dream like states, far into the future, "wow in the future we will have.....". We need to get into a 1980 personal computer outlook of really looking at the job and doing serious work.

And I am pretty sure Ronny is just trolling, so no need to respond. (If he isn't trolling he is buying into such crazy conspiracy theories nothing will convince him of reality).

[Ronny]

Yah whatever...

People of the ignorant, trapped in their little ole box will one day learn of the corrupt ways of our government and see that my 'so-called trolling' was of real importance.

No sense in trying to change the minds of the mass media-informed-brain-washed minds! No wonder this country is in the state it is these days... Not to mention the world! And it is only going to get worse until people finally WAKE UP and begin to take action!!

At least *I* am informed of the real TRUTH!


Take care...

[techieMoe]

This topic has gotten out of hand, in my opinion.