Global Warming or Global Farce?

[Adona Mara]

Here's an interesting report from Australia. Apparently some low-life hackers got into the e-mail of Hadley CRU and surprise, surprise -- not all is as it seems.

From the posting: 8.15 PM UPDATE: The Hadley CRU director admits the emails seem to be genuine:


The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight ..."It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."…

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing “hiding the decline”, and Jones explained what he was trying to say….

If you're interested, the rest of the article can be found here:

blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657

[Jinsei]

Nope, there's no such thing as global warming. It's all a figment of our imaginations that the weather is going haywire, that it's warmer and dryer in some places than it's ever been. Humans have absolutely no impact on our planet, because cows fart and burp more methane in one day than humans have released in the past 100 years. It's all a figment of our imaginations, so we shouldn't believe that we have any impact on our planet and just continue to do things the way we've always done.

Earth first... we'll strip mine the other planets later!

[Adona Mara]

Well, we know climate change is happening -- it's happening all the time. We may have some impact, and of course, we should always do what we can to protect the environment. But the problem with groups like the Climate Research Unit (and our old friend Al Gore) is that they're pushing an agenda that will severely curtail freedom for most of us, and will make them rich at our expense. My preference would be to see honest scientific research and debate -- not being shafted.

[Jinsei]

The problem is that there's so many different varieties of "honest scientific research and debate" that no two groups will ever agree on what is actually fact and what is fiction. Facts are so easily manipulated that it's easy for another group to point at different facts and say, "Look! Those don't match our findings!"

Group 1 - "Polar bears are in danger of going extinct because of habitat loss."

Group 2 - "Polar bears are fine. There are more polar bears now than there were 30 years ago."

Group 3 - "Polar bears are in danger of going extinct because there are more now than there were 30 years ago and they're losing habitat, which is causing more to die off than there should be."

Group 4 - "Polar bears aren't in danger of going extinct, because there are more now than there were 30 years ago and the loss of habitat is only temporary. Polar bears will recover."

Group 5 - "Polar bears are in danger of going extinct, because there are more now than there were 30 years ago, because habitat loss is causing mothers to abandon their young, who then starve to death or are killed by predators, effectively removing potential future breeders."

Group 6 - "The other groups have it all wrong. Polar bears are a threat to our hunting and fishing, so we should allow people to hunt and kill them, that way we can hunt and fish without having to worry about polar bears depleting our catches."

Group 7 - "The other groups have it all wrong and group 6 are just idiots. We should allow hunting of polar bears, but not because they're hurting our hunting and fishing. We should allow the hunting of male polar bears, that so we can deplete their breeding population until we recover from global warming. Young males should be trapped and placed in zoos, that way we can always use them to reintroduce fresh dna into the wild at a later date."

[Adona Mara]

I understand your point, but I'm wondering if you understand mine .

[Jinsei]

Yeah, you want them to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth... I'm saying that it'll never happen.

[Adona Mara]

Not exactly. . I'm saying that the truth is findable, and some of it is in these e-mails.

[Loretta Anakin Skywalker]

I see on this board I have the minority view. I do believe in Global Warming or the exact term Global Climate Change. I believe it for two reasons. 1, my most trusted physicists has written many books warning about it. Carl Sagan talks about it in "Cosmos" and 2, my most important reason is actual memories from the way the weather was like while I was a child verses the way it is clearly warmer today. In N.H. I have actually seen a hole in the ozone layer with my own eyes. Seeing is believing. When you are a witness to events you tend to believe those events. Of course you all do have the right to your opinions and to see things differantly.

[Adona Mara]

Oh, there's no question there's climate change. You're not in the minority about that. The questions are whether or not destroying the western lifestyle is going to make a difference, and whether or not some people will be allowed to get rich while others are kept financially depressed in order to institute a third world lifestyle in the U.S. and other western countries. That's why I say, normal care for the environment (reasonable management of forests and green spaces, recycling, minimizing or eliminating toxic chemical impact) is a worthy goal and one which every person can work toward achieving. The earth has been warmer than it is now. It will, at some point, be cooler. It's a natural climatic cycle, not something we can change by sending the western Middle Class into Third World poverty. (And, once they pull that off, who is going to care for those people in the Third World? Since it's the Middle Class contributions to charity and lobbying efforts that help those in the Third World far more than their own governments do.)

As for the ozone layer, it was long ago shown that holes are created by sun spot activity, and hydrocarbons had little or nothing to do with it. It's just part of the natural cycle of planetary life.

Don't be fooled: the question is not what's happening, but how and why is it happening. That is the main question, and the one the answer to which will make a great deal more difference than most people understand. You can't go by just what has happened in your own lifetime. You need to go back further in history, and look at weather patterns from ancient times until now. The fluctuations in temperature are tremendous, and there were times in recorded history (such as the Middle Ages) when the earth was much warmer than now; as well as recorded times when the earth was colder.

We all have the right to our own opinions, but a useful opinion is informed by facts. I don't dispute what you're saying, Loretta. I was raised on Carl, too. As I said, however, the question isn't "What?" but "Why?"
]
(Oh, just thought I'd add, the Hadley CRU is to England what NASA is to the US as regards scientific authority. That is what makes this such a newsworthy point. The most important climate science researchers in the UK were fudging the facts.)

[Loretta Anakin Skywalker]

A polite dispute. I consider myself informed because I did read Carl Sagan's book where he deals with Global Climate Change. I also went to a Helen Caldacott speech at USF( University Of South Florida) in Tampa Florida. She is a British leading authority on Global Climate Change. To put it this way she was actually allowed to talk to the wealthiest leading people of the entire world. You have to be somebody to even get near those guys. She got to speak to them in a closed session. That is pretty top dog.

I do not think it would make America a third world country to improve solar energy so it can be stored and used during long periods of rain. Because if we switched to solar not only would it help planet earth but National Security!!! Why National Security, that is easy. Solar means no more dependence on oil which means no more dependence on nations that Hate us. We will no longer have to bow before nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran and the rest of that OPEC lot. We can then tell them to take a hike!!!

[Adona Mara]

Again, Loretta, there's no arguing with that. It would be great if solar power were easier to access. And the technology is making it cheaper all the time -- the major problem, as you point out, is storage. Another problem is delivery -- as well as batteries and back-up systems. There's also a problem with making a solar panel efficient enough to service a large number of people without taking up half the open space in the country. When hubby and I measured our own needs (and we use less than many due to our lifestyle), we'd still need a fairly large array of panels. And, of course, there's always wind power (we live very close to a good sized wind farm). But, again, there's the storage problem. Right now, these systems are backed up by natural gas which, at the moment, we have in plenty. If we tapped all our natural resources (which can be done in an environmentally responsible manner) we could be free of all foreign oil long before alternative energy sources were perfected. Between domestic oil, natural gas, nukes, solar and wind, and with the addition of more modern refineries for our domestic oil, we could be free of foreign oil in roughly five to 10 years. But that won't happen, because right now our leadership thinks that would be "isolationist" and "selfish." They truly believe that it would be better to make our lifestyle like that of Mexico, with a few privileged rich, and the rest of us living like peasants with our "betters" telling us what's good for us and how we're supposed to live. Of course, they wouldn't put it exactly like that, but we've already heard the inklings of it seeping out of this health care debate. We don't know what's good for us, so they're going to tell us. Until the American people take back the power given them in the Constitution, and begins to take responsibility for their own welfare and not rely on the government, the government won't even consider "independence" from the rest of the world.

(For some reason, people seem to acquaint "independence" with "isolation." That's just silly, but it's a good propaganda tool. It's what they're teaching our children to believe in our public schools.)

I actually think, Loretta, that we're on the same page, here -- or, at least the same chapter of the book -- as long as we understand that that's not the direction our government is currently heading (and no, I don't mean just the Democrats -- it includes Republicans; these days I don't see much difference between the two).

In the meantime, batten the hatches, and save your pennies. Until some real change comes along, we're going to need to secure our own selves.

[Loretta Anakin Skywalker]

We are definatly on the same page in being skeptical about both parties. I believe neither. In the election I voted Ralph Nader. I was yelled at for throwing away my vote but I do not see it that way because neither Obama or McCain represented me. Nader came the closes at least according to this really cool interview he had. Of course the man interviewing Nader was biased because he was pro-Obama. I also do not think that either party is going to do what I believe needs to be done.

Personally I would rather go totally solar because it would encourage invention in America again. It has been a long time since America has had a genius like Nikola Tesla(He invented Alternating Current, AC the kind of electricity we use today). America at least in our past likes to be behind the 8 ball so to speak and then with great effort come from behind and win the day. America has done this on a number of occasions. So if America realized that solar energy would free us from OPEC dependence and cross the isle for both liberals and conservatives than America might just work hard at it and in the process feel better about herself. This come up from behind Makes Americans feel better about rising up to the challenge.
I do not think the ability to run your own country as isolationist. Actually both capitalists and communist nations have protected the integrity of their own boarders. It is today's people who are weird. I remember in the cold war days America protected her interests but so did the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). Communist China under Mao Tse-Tung also protected its interest. So back then weather you were communist or capitalist you guarded your boarders. It is today's people who seem to forget how to stand by your friends and how to fight an enemy.

[Adona Mara]

I'd probably not vote for Ralph Nader -- he's a fair bit to the left of me -- but I agree the choices we had weren't really "choices" at all, policy-wise.

As for Solar, I think most people would be perfectly fine with implementing it -- most of them are more concerned with that their lights, and TV, and stereo, and fridge work than with why & how. But there are a lot of parts of the country that don't get a lot of sun, and it's not something that can be put into place to take care of everyone's total electricity needs in a snap. Which is why I suggest a gradual but steady implementation of such things. Also, setting up Solar for every single person in the country is a massive financial burden and is better spread out over a bit of time that crammed into one quick year or two. Especially until Congress learns to keep its greedy paws off of our money. It's doable, but rushing will only make the difficulties harder to overcome.

[Jinsei]

The problem with implementing wind and solar on a large scale is that they don't help those of us who aren't within the service area. Where I live, we pay 18 cents per KWH, in some areas where they have wind farms, they're paying 3 cents per KWH. Solar and wind are both expensive to put up yourself, but they do end up paying for themselves within a few years.

In Arizona, a lot of people live so far out in the desert that they use alternative energy sources like solar and wind. They learn to adjust their power consumption to make sure that they have what they need. Then, a lot of them have generators in case they need extra power at night that their batteries can't give them. One guy I knew had his house wired that so he could turn off individual outlets, because when he's not home or not using stuff, there's no need in most of it running... like the computer, vcr, etc. Basically, if it draws any "standby" power, he'd kill it when it wasn't is use.

If more people would learn to live like this, then if the power companies would work towards balancing out the charge per KWH over a wider area, then people would be more eager to go towards a production that doesn't require oil or nuclear power. If on their electric bills, they could see what percentage of it came from an alternative source, along with showing a percentage comparison with previous months' uses, then they'd be more knowledgeable about what they're consuming and when. Obviously, people would see higher uses during the holidays, but the rest of the year, they're simply not consciously aware of how much electricity they're using during certain hours or certain days. Imagine if your electric bill could tell you if you're using as much electricity at 2am as you use at 2pm.

Another thing that we, as a nation, should do is to endorse the use of motorcycles for single transportation when it's actually usable. They get close to 60 mpg and require less raw materials to build. People who live in cities could easily use a small scooter (even some newer electric ones) and save a small fortune in fuel expenses, but they won't feel secure enough in doing it until cities provide special lanes for them, because people in full-size cars don't pay attention to them.

Another easy fix to help cut down on electricity is for electric companies, cities, etc. to have a rotating shut-off on "low priority" street lights. We all know these lights, they're the ones that don't really cover anything important, like in the middle of the country or an empty stretch of road, where they could shut off randomly for 5 or 10 minutes, and save that electric use.