Climate change

Climate change

<placeholder>The more often threads change, the more they stay the same.</placeholder>

This is the next thread in a row, following the now retired <a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=121898">Global Warming</a>.

Global Warming
The subject of global warming is controversial. A report published by the UK government is outlined in the BBC NEWS site in an article on 30 January, 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4660938.stm
In it

Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said the report's conclusions would be a shock to many people.
"The thing that is perhaps not so familiar to members of the public... is this notion that we could come to a tipping point where change could be irreversible," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"We're not talking about it happening over five minutes, of course, maybe over a thousand years, but it's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people.

Given the timespan of a thousand or so years, the likelihood of common action is questionable. The Bush administration has already demurred on a national plan and other countries have fudged.
While it is easy to focus in on that bad news, the likelihood of China, India and other rapidly developing nations to adopt stringent regulations is slim.

What do we do?
———————————————
So began the thread Jaybro started, that "retired" half a dozen others… (And rightly so!)
———————————————
What has changed?As the report linked to originally concludes:

[…] the biggest obstacles to the take up of technologies such as renewable sources of energy and "clean coal" lie in vested interests, cultural barriers to change and simple lack of awareness.

Can we at least begin with the admitted realization, that "lack of awareness" is no longer part of the problem?

Here is the list of predecessors:
<ol><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=31663">Giant Canadian Ice Sheet Breaks Up</a> (2003)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=34534">No Global Warming -- Why are glaciers disappearing?</a> (2003)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=38228">Russia Announces It Will Turn Down Kyoto Protocall</a> (2003)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=38688">Sanctions for Kyoto Busters?</a> (2003)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=41224">Global Warning Extinction</a> (2004)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=43918">The Coooling World</a> (2004)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=46001">Pentagon Tells Bush: Climate Change Will Destroy Us</a> (2004)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=51698">Global Warming - An Economic Scam?</a> (2004)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=68355">Kyoto - what do you think?</a> (2004)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=70386">Russia ratifies Kyoto agreement</a> (2004)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=80356">Study Bolsters Greenhouse Effect Theory, Solves Ice Age Mystery</a> (2005)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=81893">New proof that man has caused global warming</a> (2005)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=99193">Climate warning as Siberia melts</a> (2005)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=100739">German minister blames global warming and US policy for katrina, shows no compassion</a> (2005)</li><li><b><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=121898">Global Warming</a> (2006, predecessor)</b></li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=124239">Arctic meltdown</a> (2006)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=148601">Hot enough for you?</a> (2006)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=159215">Richard Branson to donate profits from Virgin transport divisions to tackle climate change</a> (2006)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=172136">The other polar trouble up North</a> (2006)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=176252">Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study</a> (2007)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=176947">Car(bon) reduction in the EU</a> (2007)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=181620">Global warming fanaticism</a> (2007)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=192256">Global warming, why take take action now?</a> (2007)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=196044">Global Warming rocks; or does it?</a> (2007)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=198409">Cool ideas in a warm world</a> (2007)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=255718">Global Warming Concerns</a> (2008)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=265287">Global Warming</a> (2009)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=272819">End Global Whining</a> (2009)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=289025">Hijacked by Climate Change</a> (2009)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=328021">Our Copenhagen interpretation</a> (2009)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=342821">Global Warming</a> (2009)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=377591">The "Does Obama support global warming evolutionary theology?" thread</a> (2009)</li><li><a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=739912">Global Warning: misconcieved as Global Warming.</a> (2010)</li></ol>




Tell if I have missed any.

Absolutely nothing is served by changing the thread except, change for the sake of change.

A lie, is still a lie regardless of what you call it. Truth will always be truth whatever the label.

Global Warming/Climate Change is real.

That it is man made, caused by man, or is able to be controlled by man in any meaningful way is highly questionable.

That debate won't change regardless of what new names you call it, or the thread where the debate ensues.

I now subscribe to this thread & will treat it as if the name had never changed.

It Continues............................................

Originally posted by jax:

Tell if I have missed any.

Oh, please, don't!

But the Cool Ideas… thread should –one hopes– continue.

Added, thanks. I don't think the list is complete yet, that may be something for the next thread, 2500 posts or so in the future. I'll add a description to this thread later.

The IPCC and it's Scientists among them Osvaldo Canziani, both part of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been discredited for confusing 'equilibrium' temperature rise with 'transient temperature rise.'" and anyone who uses their study is enough to be discredited. Among those who based their research on the IPCC was Al Gore.

"..."We immediately contacted a climate change expert, who confirmed that the information raised many questions in his mind, too. We swiftly removed the news release from our website and contacted the submitting organization." .... Scientist Osvaldo Canziani, who was part of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was listed as the scientific advisor to the report... "Canziani's spokesman said Tuesday he was ill and was unavailable for interviews."..."

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-climate-significant-error-experts.html

Extremely telling the article ended with "Asked for comment on Hoffman's response, Mandia told AFP: "He is still confused."

Originally posted by grysmn:

The IPCC and it's Scientists among them Osvaldo Canziani, both part of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been discredited

No he/they haven't. Can you not read even the most elementary reports correctly?

Originally posted by grysmn:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been discredited for confusing 'equilibrium' temperature rise with 'transient temperature rise.'"

No they haven't, and no they didn't. Your reporting of the story is verging on the imbecilic.

Originally posted by grysmn:

....and anyone who uses their study is enough to be discredited. Among those who based their research on the IPCC was Al Gore.

According to? Surprise, surprise.....according to Grysmn.

Originally posted by grysmn:

"He is still confused."

I am sure he is. Yet I sincerely doubt he is as confused as you.


You've definitely earned your banana today....here it is.

The problem is the evidence can be rigged in favour or against climate change and it can become very contradictory

Originally posted by Museatlantis:

The problem is the evidence can be rigged in favour or against climate change and it can become very contradictory

Contradictory is not a bad thing. If one set of data implies on conclusion, and another set of data implies another (given that the methodology and data have both been available for scrutiny), then it shows that there are other factors in play between the two. This is good, and healthy, and the way things should work. That's how we iron out the details, or make staggering new discoveries.

For anyone not following the story, a study has been published predicting doom by climate change, based on IPCC data. The study is criticised and removed. The original authors protest their accuracy.

At no point do deniers acknowledge that it's the scientific liberal elite that criticises the report, because in their minds all the scientists do is blindy accept doom prophesies.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

.....all the scientists do is blindy accept doom prophesies.

When there is big $$$$ for research & other fringe benefits (vacations, spending cash, cars, boats, jewelry, etc, etc...) involved, courtesy of a George Soros et al slush (excuse the pun) fund, they do.

Originally posted by jax:

Here is the list of predecessors:

1. Giant Canadian Ice Sheet Breaks Up (2003)
2. No Global Warming -- Why are glaciers disappearing? (2003)
3. Russia Announces It Will Turn Down Kyoto Protocall (2003)
4. Sanctions for Kyoto Busters? (2003)

,etc.

We can play a forum game! Make the entire "debate" based on answers already even in a earlier thread. Somebody says something you disagree with, search the old threads and repost the answer given there The winner is the one is able to make statement to which the reply has not been given in a earlier thread.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

When there is big $$$$ for research & other fringe benefits (vacations, spending cash, cars, boats, jewelry, etc, etc...) involved, courtesy of a George Soros et al slush (excuse the pun) fund, they do.

But they don't get those benefits... These kinds of fringe benefits are solely the preserve of those scientists shilling for industry.

Originally posted by grysmn:

The IPCC and it's Scientists among them Osvaldo Canziani, both part of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been discredited for confusing 'equilibrium' temperature rise with 'transient temperature rise.'" and anyone who uses their study is enough to be discredited. Among those who based their research on the IPCC was Al Gore.

"..."We immediately contacted a climate change expert, who confirmed that the information raised many questions in his mind, too. We swiftly removed the news release from our website and contacted the submitting organization." .... Scientist Osvaldo Canziani, who was part of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was listed as the scientific advisor to the report... "Canziani's spokesman said Tuesday he was ill and was unavailable for interviews."..."

Yet apparently scientists were not clamouring to get behind this new doom-mongering scenario, in fact real climate scientists were the ones who eviscerated the study and found the error.
Moreover, the error was on the part of a small NGO in a third world nation, not on the part of the IPCC, who's projections on the same data were far more conservative and have not been found to be in error.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

We can play a forum game! Make the entire "debate" based on answers already even in a earlier thread.

Then a good researcher like yourself would provide specific posts, rather than links to the main post. As for the rest of what you said, it may or may not be true, but the casual surfer wouldn't check that out, but would leave with a negative impression. Nice ploy.....I'll have to think about using it next time I want to set up a ruse, not that I would do such a thing like this.

Originally posted by Redem:

But they don't get those benefits... These kinds of fringe benefits are solely the preserve of those scientists shilling for industry.

Where's your proof that they don't....After all it's only your word, but you made the statement...where's your proof?

Absent of proof all we have is your word, empty that it would be devoid of actual, verifiable, proof that is.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Where's your proof that they don't....After all it's only your word, but you made the statement...where's your proof?

Are you honestly asking me to provide evidence that scientists aren't getting kick backs from... unnamed persons to fudge data? If they are, they're hardly going to advertise it.

How about you show that they are, instead of shifting the burden onto me. All you need is a handful of examples, afterall, rather than having to prove everyone isn't in it for the money.

Of course, one might point out that scientists would earn more money working for industry than they would if they went into academia, but I suppose that point isn't gonna convince you of anything. You're already convinced it's all a scam, clearly, despite that being ludicrous.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Then a good researcher like yourself would provide specific posts, rather than links to the main post. As for the rest of what you said, it may or may not be true, but the casual surfer wouldn't check that out, but would leave with a negative impression. Nice ploy.....I'll have to think about using it next time I want to set up a ruse, not that I would do such a thing like this.

Aww, you're so cynical that it hurts my feelings. I simply mean that it's hard to imagine anybody coming up with anything new on the subject. This is includes the conspiracy theory that climatologists are getting these huge kickbacks for say there is anthropogenic global warming. That appeared in several threads already.

Originally posted by Redem:

Are you honestly asking me to provide evidence that scientists aren't getting kick backs from... unnamed persons to fudge data?

Nothing like being asked to a prove a negative, eh?

I'm not worried about the planet.
Sure, it can drastically change into a hostile environment that can't sustain mankind.
But it won't kill all life. Neither did the extinction of the dinosaurs.

So, do we care about the possibility of being like dinosaurs?
No one takes it seriously. Strange belief that our species is indestructible.
We're the best animal but we're still animals.

Originally posted by aesteticpriest:

Sure, it can drastically change into a hostile environment that can't sustain mankind.

Why is that not a concern?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Why is that not a concern?

He's not a member of mankind?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by aesteticpriest:

Sure, it can drastically change into a hostile environment that can't sustain mankind.

Why is that not a concern?

Eh? "But it won't kill all life."

Originally posted by aesteticpriest:

I'm not worried about the planet.

Originally posted by aesteticpriest:

We're the best animal but we're still animals.

The difference being, we have the ability to take care of the planet, whereas other animals don't.

Volcanoes contribute far more global green house gases than mankind has ever produced. The recent Icelandic eruption spewed as much so called green house gases in one day as man produces in one year. The eruption lasted for months. Mount Pinitubu eruption in the eighties released more so called greenhouse emissions than mankind has released in the past 40,000 years.

It has happened again. More shoddy science on the part of Global Warming faction. "When they appeared in November 2009, the collection of emails and source code from the UEA's Climatic Research Unit showed prima facie evidence of serious scientific misconduct – including subverting the peer-review process, deletion of emails in response to FOIA requests, withholding data, and the inability to reproduce their own results. In one email, CRU's director Phil Jones vowed to keep two opposing papers out of the scientific literature, "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/25/climategate_select_committee/

Originally posted by grysmn:

Volcanoes contribute far more global green house gases than mankind has ever produced.

Only if you take the effect of volcanoes over the whole of the history of the planet. In the average year they're less than 1% of our current yearly output.
That's kinda the problem, we're constantly doing it, volcanoes are not.

However, where are you getting your numbers from? I'm using this and this.
The worst part of that claim is that it is obviously not true at even a cursory glance. If it were, the atmosphere would be nothing BUT volcanic gases.

Originally posted by grysmn:

It has happened again. More shoddy science on the part of Global Warming faction.

Same incident, and it's still not what you're claiming. No evidence of any misconduct, fraud, conspiracy, criminal deletion of emails or inability to reproduce results.
Simple quote mining from top to bottom.

The article you link to simply repeats the same accusations without evidence, and then goes on a character assassination spree.

As for "subverting peer review", just how do you think peer review works, exactly, if not through scientists discussing the work of others between themselves and reaching judgements as to the standards of the research, and informing journals and other scientists of their conclusions. This is not the subversion of peer review, it IS peer review.

Originally posted by Redem:

No evidence of any misconduct, fraud, conspiracy, criminal deletion of emails or inability to reproduce results.

I can find some misconduct/fraud for you....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/25/michaels-climate-sceptic-misled-congress

How to phrase this story in Grysmnsistic language?

The climate Sceptics, Tea Party and it's followers among them Patrick Michaels, all part of the anti-climate change movement, have been discredited for lying about the source of their funding, and anyone who uses their studies is enough to be discredited. Among those who based their research on the Cato Institute nonsense was Grysmn.

<i>"Now, Waxman writes in a letter to the incoming committee chair, Fred Upton, it appears as if Michaels may have misled the committee. In 2009, Michaels said 3% of his $4.2m in financial support came from the oil and gas industry. But in an appearance on CNN in August last year, and in subsequent interviews, Michaels suggested that figure was 40%."</a>

Extremely telling the article ended with 'But the Kochs have for years been funnelling money to organisations which oppose government regulations and deny the existence of climate change.'

Originally posted by grysmn:

.....More shoddy science on the part of Global Warming faction. "When they appeared in November 2009, the collection of emails and source code from the UEA's Climatic Research Unit showed prima facie evidence of serious scientific misconduct – including subverting the peer-review process, deletion of emails in response to FOIA requests, withholding data, and the inability to reproduce their own results. In one email, CRU's director Phil Jones vowed to keep two opposing papers out of the scientific literature, "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/25/climategate_select_committee/

Amazingly grysmn, when the truth is told, they -- Redem & garydenness -- become the deniers, exactly like those they detest.


Well, this might or might not add to the debate. Decide for yourself.

They refuse to admit the truth....Acknowledge that the emails do exist, did exist, have existed, & they tell their own stories...about threats, fraud, deceptions, & hysteria by fraudsters & hucksters under the guise of Science--- their perverted science......but they tell their own stories & expose the bounty of LIES about Global Warming -- in their own words no less!

ClimateGate Who's Who

Well it seems that one aspect that warmers always fall back on is that all the glaciers are on the way out. However only about one hundred of the accepted 160 odd glaciers are looked at as to be reveiewed! Some glaciers have shrunk but this has happened before over the centuries and indeed for a long time beofre al, this crabon stuff we being hit over the head with. So whilst others have retreated others have nott so we have yet another area where the situation has not beeen truthful on a limited sample.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

crabon stuff we being hit over the head wit

I'm not sure what crabon is, although it sounds both painful and potentially contagious. Call the police, RJ. Don't be a victim!

Crime in Glasgow is clearly still a problem, though!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

They refuse to admit the truth....Acknowledge that the emails do exist, did exist, have existed, & they tell their own stories...about threats, fraud, deceptions, & hysteria by fraudsters & hucksters under the guise of Science--- their perverted science......but they tell their own stories & expose the bounty of LIES about Global Warming -- in their own words no less!

That they exist is not in doubt. The accusation that they show any sort of fraud is contested.
We've been over this though, when this first happened. You failed to show any fraud then, and I doubt you can do any better now.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well it seems that one aspect that warmers always fall back on is that all the glaciers are on the way out. However only about one hundred of the accepted 160 odd glaciers are looked at as to be reveiewed! Some glaciers have shrunk but this has happened before over the centuries and indeed for a long time beofre al, this crabon stuff we being hit over the head with. So whilst others have retreated others have nott so we have yet another area where the situation has not beeen truthful on a limited sample.

Most are shrinking, some quite rapidly. A few are growing, but only in those areas where increased precipitation from global warming is causeing them to grow.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

They refuse to admit the truth....Acknowledge that the emails do exist, did exist, have existed, & they tell their own stories...about threats, fraud, deceptions, & hysteria by fraudsters & hucksters under the guise of Science--- their perverted science......but they tell their own stories & expose the bounty of LIES about Global Warming -- in their own words no less!

Wow. That's what they say? Really? You sure you've read them? Or have you just repeated a few choice snippets that you think might confirm your prejudices?

First rule of scientific analysis - don't cherry pick your dataset.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

They refuse to admit the truth....Acknowledge that the emails do exist, did exist, have existed, & they tell their own stories...about threats, fraud, deceptions, & hysteria by fraudsters & hucksters under the guise of Science--- their perverted science......but they tell their own stories & expose the bounty of LIES about Global Warming -- in their own words no less!

Are the skeptics still so short of their own material to support their case that the discredited cherry picking contained in this video is all they have?

I didn't watch the video beyond the first minute. Too slow and old. But tell me.....was the 'Hide the decline' line in there??

Then, there's always the old stand-by science which consists of looking out the window and seeing what the weather is doing. If you had been in my apartment Tuesday Night/Wednesday Morning, you just might have wished for a bit of global warming. Or, at least a fire-breathing dragon. Failing that, you would have had to do what I and a bunch of my neighbors did--- grab a shovel and start digging out.

20 inches of snow and below-zero F cold will do that kind of thing. Right now we're largely dug out (Hmmm.... Jaybro, you're downwind of us--- how'd you do through this one?) but there's still the cold. So, if you have a fire-breathing dragon you're not doing anything with at the moment I'm sure we can find something useful for him to do here in the Northern Illinois/Southern Wisconsin/Northwestern Indiana/Lower Michigan area. There's lots of snow to melt and plenty of cold air to warm up. That's if the East Coast doesn't grab him first.

That sort of "science" tells you only what the local weather is like on any given day. It says nothing about the long term changes in climate in a given location, and certainly not about the entire planet.

Climate, like politics, is local. Global weather or unrest in the Middle East may someday affect everybody, but people first vote on their own situations. If I'm fat and happy, the party in power stays in power. If I'm out of a job and the cupboard is bare and the rent is due with no money to pay it, the opposing party is all but guaranteed election. Climate/Weather works pretty much the same. It's a trifle hard to get worked up about Global Warming when you're digging out of nearly two feet of snow and the temps will get to below zero F by nightfall. Especially considering that these days, my "window" includes Television and the Internet, thereby making it possible to see what is happening worldwide. Fascinating: It's warm in Australia (their summer) and bitterly cold in International Falls, Minnesota (during our winter) just like it's been since---- a while, anyway.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

bitterly cold in International Falls, Minnesota (during our winter) just like it's been since---- a while, anyway.

...since Chester was a pup, I think.

Summer in International Falls is three or four days.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Climate, like politics, is local.

And if each track on an album is less than 4 minutes long, then the whole album is?

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

It's a trifle hard to get worked up about Global Warming when you're digging out of nearly two feet of snow and the temps will get to below zero F by nightfall.

But that's exactly why you should be worked up about it.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Climate, like politics, is local

Weather is local, climate is not.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Climate/Weather works pretty much the same. It's a trifle hard to get worked up about Global Warming when you're digging out of nearly two feet of snow and the temps will get to below zero F by nightfall.

Yes, it is a problem. A separate issues from whether the science is correct, though.

During the time of Roman Empire (150 BC - 300 AD) a cooling began that lasted until about 900 AD. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html

I'll let somebody else comment on this. It's above my pay grade.

Iceland is about to have another volcano erupt. Much larger than the last one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/iceland/8311924/Icelandic-volcano-set-to-erupt.html

What is interesting is that the aftermath of volcanic eruptions spewing so called greenhouse gasses has always been a global decrease in temperature. http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

Originally posted by grysmn:

What is interesting is that the aftermath of volcanic eruptions spewing so called greenhouse gasses has always been a global decrease in temperature.

Usually, yes, though not always. Depends on the kind of eruption, but generally the ash clouds block out the sun for a time, resulting in a net cooling effect.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

The difference being, we have the ability to take care of the planet, whereas other animals don't.

I think we have the ability to irreversibly screw up the planet, where as Animals tend to just live on it.
Will we make the sacrifice.. I think not, so many can't live without the conveniences..

Performing two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea, according to new research.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=oW0&rls=en&&sa=X&ei=GWdUTen-DIbSsAOLt6XlBQ&ved=0CBEQBSgA&q=Carbon+footprint+of+using+a+computer&spell=1


That it we gotta Kill GOOGLES...

Sanctions for Kyoto Busters?
So any vehicle in Japan that reaches 55K miles has to have new engine or scrapped...
Where do all those engines show up ? Here in the USA.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=iDL&rls=en&q=Japan+engines+for+sale&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

Sanctions for Kyoto Busters?
So any vehicle in Japan that reaches 55K miles has to have new engine or scrapped...
Where do all those engines show up ? Here in the USA.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=iDL&rls=en&q=Japan+engines+for+sale&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=

My engine must be on "Wanted-- Dead" posters all over Japan right about now. It's got 352,000 miles on it.

Climate change is the biggest issue against the world. Right now I am felling two seasons. Early morning and at evening, my coat is on to protect myself from cool. But through the day at office we stay in AC. What is happening? Which season is today? We have to control the pollution. Otherwise situation become worse from bad.

Originally posted by Redem:

Usually, yes, though not always. Depends on the kind of eruption, but generally the ash clouds block out the sun for a time, resulting in a net cooling effect.

What is quite interesting and points out the fallacy of minimal environmental impact of Gases due to volcanic eruption is that many estimates say that the green house gases released are minimal when compared to mans contribution. That is man imposed climate change advocates claim that the volcanic eruptions do not effect the environment as much as man does. Yet after an eruption the world wide temperature can drop as much as one degree centigrade. The man imposed climate change advocates estimate that the Icelandic eruptions contributed as much greenhouse pollution as a medium sized European economy contributes in one year. Yet world wide there was a change in temperature due to the Icelandic volcanic eruption.

Originally posted by grysmn:

What is quite interesting and points out the fallacy of minimal environmental impact of Gases due to volcanic eruption is that many estimates say that the green house gases released are minimal when compared to mans contribution. That is man imposed climate change advocates claim that the volcanic eruptions do not effect the environment as much as man does. Yet after an eruption the world wide temperature can drop as much as one degree centigrade.

You're confusing separate ideas. The significance of the greenhouse gases from volcanoes is minimal, the significance of the ash is not.

Originally posted by grysmn:

The man imposed climate change advocates estimate that the Icelandic eruptions contributed as much greenhouse pollution as a medium sized European economy contributes in one year. Yet world wide there was a change in temperature due to the Icelandic volcanic eruption.

I don't think we're attributing the cool winters in Europe and North America to the Icelandic volcano, it wasn't that large.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

My engine must be on "Wanted-- Dead" posters all over Japan right about now. It's got 352,000 miles on it.

I don't think they make a shoe big enough to cover that carbon footprint!!

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

It's got 352,000 miles on it

Dang! You just bought that truck a couple years ago, didn't you because your boss was pushing you to get Sprinter? I guess the miles pile on, though.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

It's got 352,000 miles on it

Dang! You just bought that truck a couple years ago, didn't you because your boss was pushing you to get Sprinter? I guess the miles pile on, though.

I bought it used, it already had 183,000 on it. The miles do add up though.

What will be used to generate the electricity needed on a daily basis to feed about 200 million hungry electric cars?

Who's children will have to go hungry night after night because the food that could have been available for them won't be available because the producers of the food sold it to the companies that produce bio-fuels used to run most of the rest of the cars?

How much will a carbon tax cost the average industrialized world citizen per year, & who will experience the fruits of it's proceeds?







I say, Climate Change, balderdash!

Bring on the next Ice Age/Extinction Event.

It's due soon.

Till then live life hard & strong--enjoy the only life you have, short that it may be--above all else be merry, merry just like me.