Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
07:46 PM on 06/20/2011
It's true that Spain has pursued the sort of policies Obama favors, but far from inaugurating a new green-technology era, Spain is floundering. According to the American Enterprise Institute, since 2000, Spanish taxpayers have spent $771,000 per job for each green job created. And each green job has been purchased at the cost of 2.2 jobs lost in other areas of the economy. Spain, its government close to insolvency, has been forced to reverse course, slashing subsidies for wind and solar power. Germany, too, whose citizens have paid 7.5 percent more for energy since the green subsidies were introduced, is reducing support for green sources of energy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
08:42 PM on 06/20/2011
You may want to see just who is in charge of the AEI, the propaganda arm of the fossil fuel industries. Their numbers are made up out of thin air.  Europe, onshore wind will continue to be the most cost-effective of all renewable energy sources
06:33 PM on 06/21/2011
Announcing that wind is most cost effective of a collection of cost ineffective renewables isn't exactly refuting anything AEI is reporting now is it? Wind power still costs considerably MORE than coal, is far less reliable than coal, take far more money up front than coal and doesn't provide any fertilizer for plant life, (unless you want to count CO2 from the COAL fired power plants that power the Chinese factories making many of the wind turbine parts being purchased with subsidies to GE from MY tax money.)

Spain's economy is on the brink of default and the people are revolting against this green crap and the CAGW horse it rode in on.
This American
An end to all this nonsense
09:39 AM on 06/21/2011
The TRUE story of the origin of "there's a sucker born every minute" is instructive here.

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lambdin1
What's this?
06:10 PM on 06/20/2011
I've said it so many times, mankind is destroying the earth. The only way it will ever end is for mankind to never have fish again and all of the other items that he "thinks" he needs. Mankind will die and the earth will restore itself!!!!!
06:41 PM on 06/21/2011
"Destroying the Earth" How does one do that? Did you know that 99.99% of every species that ever walked the earth became extinct BEFORE we arrived? Do you think we can match the destructive power of a comet hitting earth or extensive lava flows like the Siberian Traps - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Traps ?

Do you think DDT or an oil slick is even mentionable in comparison to what an ice age will do?
06:22 PM on 06/22/2011
Between the United States and Russia alone, a major nuclear exchange using most of each nation's nuclear arsenal would destroy the larger part of life on Earth, through radioactive contamination and the potential for a nuclear winter. It is safe to say that there have been periodic mass extinctions. In each case, the more sophisticated life forms perished, leaving the simpler, more adaptable forms to carry on through the next phase.

The "comet"/ "lava flow" examples you cite did not result in any mass extinctions, presuming that the Tunguska Event was a comet. The body that fell in the Yucatan was likely an asteroid, and it effectively caused the extinction of most of the higher-order dinosaurs, and much of the flora. It also likely created a "nuclear winter" - like scenario, contributing to the elimination of other species in the food chain of the dinosaurs.

The last major Ice Age did not result in any mass extinctions, and it is probable that the precursors of homo sapiens lived through it, albeit not without hardship and a change in the structure of their societies. On the obverse, a "warm age" would have the same effect on an overpopulated planet, causing gradual rises in sea levels, changes in ocean currents and temperatures, and significant changes in weather patterns and severity. We are already beginning to experience these effects.

These changes affect OUR food chains, and drive up fuel and food costs. You may not care. Most of the rest of us do.
photo
baltbear
actual capitalist; actual republican
05:49 PM on 06/20/2011
just tell me specifically which 3,000,000,000 people die from "just say no" and i'm all for it.
until you do, "just say no" is just another voom.
can the world get serious about taxing carbon, and then do its own adjusting? probably.
can the 20 year history of working towards synthetic glacial grinding-- the "add iron" theory get some testing in real world conditions?
yes.
all "just say" yes or no solutions are unworkable; that is, unless u understand that soylent green is in fact everybody's favorite.
06:45 PM on 06/21/2011
Well there's simply no proof that the puny human contribution of CO2 (3%) has any significant affect on climate. Until you actually have some evidence to support the claim - count me OUT.

Right now CO2 is still rising but global temperature stopped rising. Praise God! We no longer have to fear catastrophic global warming! http://tinyurl.com/6espvwp
11:42 PM on 06/21/2011
Consider yourself counted out. It's clear from your posts that you will accept no evidence that conflicts with your pre-conceived notions. It doesn't really matter, anyway. Your opinion and mine are irrelevant because things are already in motion, and there is no overarching human will to attempt a change of course.
02:42 PM on 06/22/2011
@ logicdog on Jun 21, 2011 at 23:42:10:
“Consider yourself counted out. It's clear from your posts that you will accept no evidence that conflicts with your pre-concei­ved notions. It doesn't really matter, anyway. Your opinion and mine are irrelevant because things are already in motion, and there is no overarchin­g human will to attempt a change of course.”
-------------------
Ummm, I will accept evidence to consider if only you would try to provide some. I hope you'll at least credit me for presenting MY OWN opinions here using scientific data to support it. I don't go around parroting what other people say unless I myself can reach the same conclusion they did using the same data.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Mississippi Red
Stoke City: ugly football that works
05:46 PM on 06/20/2011
It will eventually come down to engeneering. Which is scary. Imagine the US Corps of Engineers trying to fix things. With their record...
photo
bespoken
My micro bio is filled with emptiness
05:40 PM on 06/20/2011
*sigh*

Reading over some the posts/threads here, it seems pretty clear that with the state of the world's societies, we will do precious little to avert our headlong rush to disaster. Chine and India will continue to pollute, emit, and consume at an ever accelerating rate along with the rest of the developed and developing world.

What the deniers here fail to recognize or understand is that there comes a tipping point from which there is no return. When it does arrive, the consequences will manifest themselves very quickly indeed.
10:30 AM on 06/21/2011
I agree. Another point is that many predictions of climatologists have been accurate except that the adverse conditions are occurring much faster than originally predicted. Many people think climate change is something that is going to happen someday in the distant future. It is already happening.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chaz
05:19 PM on 06/20/2011
I have no idea why I read these articles because I only get depressed knowing 2 million Americans watch fox propaganda "news" each night and all 2 million don't believe in science unless of course professor glen beck or professor Sarah palin says so.
07:22 PM on 06/20/2011
Or algore
07:49 PM on 06/20/2011
On AGW, the science has been pretty thoroughly muddied. It is a stone cold fact that the data, and the data collection points were skewed to obtain the desired results. Notice I did not deny AGW exists. I am saying that the subject has been discredited by the revelation of pencil-whipping the raw data a few years ago. It will be many years before politicians will stand firmly behind it again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Milks
Ecologist
09:29 PM on 06/20/2011
In actuality, "Climategate" itself was a hoax of a scandal, with handpicked and (in cases) creatively edited e-mails to paint the scientists in the worst possible light. Once the full reviews were over, not a single paper was retracted and the exoneration of the scientists were buried on the back pages. In fact, the science behind the results was declared to be reliable. Too bad the politicians weren't listening to the exonerations

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/07/climategate-investigation_0_n_637622.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/01/climategate-michael-mann-cleared_n_633207.html
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Kelly Rigg
02:15 AM on 06/21/2011
No, that's not a stone cold fact. Every independent review of so-called climategate concluded that the science was fundamentally sound. Those behind the leaks had the sole intention of sowing the kind of doubt that you're referring to.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
herbertpop
04:08 PM on 06/20/2011
If we are really serious about climate change, we must do something big. I suggest we construct a system of magnetic levitation transportation across the nation. Maglev is cheaper, cleaner, safer, and faster than oer odes of transportation. Let,s transport America into the 21st century.
photo
baltbear
actual capitalist; actual republican
05:50 PM on 06/20/2011
tell me the carbon footprint of the construction--down to the heat output of the cement plants, and you might e saying something.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
herbertpop
10:49 PM on 06/21/2011
If you would take 10 minutes to look it up on the internet instead of asking an uninformed question, you would know how much cleaner and more efficient it is compared to say -diesel trucks.
07:51 PM on 06/20/2011
So, where does the juice to run it come from? COAL=53% It's like punching yourself in the face, because it feels so much better when you quit..................
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
herbertpop
10:52 PM on 06/21/2011
I already replied but I can,t understand why people comment out of ignorance when all they have to do is LOOK IT UP ON THE INTERNET>
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dh Barr
Bringing Clues to the Clueless
03:53 PM on 06/20/2011
I'm a lot more worried about direct water pollution, chemical runoff, etc. going into the oceans than I am about CO2. Every photosynthetic life form on the planet will greedily consume as much CO2 as it can - wasting TRILLIONS of dollars on bogus environmentalism threatens projects that might actually do some real good for the environment.
I leave near the Chesapeake Bay - it isn't CO2 that threatens that habitat, it is runoff from farms, waste treatment plants, pollution coming down the Susquehanna from PA, etc. Atmospheric CO2 going from 36ppm to 40ppm is way down the list of priorities for my environmental funding, and to suggest that it is the most important challenge to the health of the worlds oceans pretty silly IMHO.
04:23 PM on 06/20/2011
It's more like 380 ppm to 400 ppm.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Mississippi Red
Stoke City: ugly football that works
05:42 PM on 06/20/2011
Yep, your opinion is much more sound than panels of experts.

Your point about runoff and pollution is correct. Your point about photosynthetic organisms using all the CO2 we can pump into the atmosphere is not. That was debunked some years ago. Over and over again by independent studies on both terrestrial and marine systems.

The basic point: if we curb pollution and toxic runoff, the bay has the ability to recover from those stressors. But if acidification continues, there is no recovery. It cannot be undone. The fate of the ocean is much more important on a global scale than the bay. And the bay is dependent on the ocean, not the other way around.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mark Knudsen
03:16 PM on 06/20/2011
Th majority of the worlds (civilized?) know nothign of what it takes to provide life to its inhabitants and don't seem to care except lip service or a week end rally were we go nuts...well yur going to think nuts when the house of cards we are building for urselves dumps right in our laps whilw it has been telling us...humans for the most part need to be taken out behind the wood shed and have an olds dutch uncles talk we are so stuck on ourselves we think the sun rises and sets just for us....we are nuts...the old viking
03:01 PM on 06/20/2011
Rubbish, CO2 has been 10 to 20 times higher in concentration in earth's past. How did they survive that? (How did polar bears survive the Minoan Warming Period? )

Besides, everyone knows that a warming ocean releases more CO2 than it absorbs. Are there really people stupid enough to believe that ALL of the extra CO2 is coming from humans?

Kelly says - "The best way to get existing CO2 out of the atmosphere is to increase the CO2-absorption capacity of natural ecosystems -- both on land and at sea."

How out of touch can you be Kelly? I's already HAPPENING ... naturally. From 1982 to 1999 the CO2 absorption by the planet's plant life went UP by 6%, 3.4 GT (Apparently the plants must like the stuff huh?)

Human emission went up about 1.8 GT in the same period so the plants are increasing their absorption of CO2 at a rate HIGHER than our increase of emission! And leaves you wondering - WHERE is the BALANCE of all that extra CO2 coming from Kelly? (hint - not land)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/300/5625/1560.abstract

Phil Jones - "We will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is.”
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mark Knudsen
03:22 PM on 06/20/2011
say sport we're cutting down the rainforest and we are having more people thast are giving off more mathain..how do we cure that one .hand out butt plugs to all us cantribiters and then kill asll the termites and get ride of cattle thst providess you with your kansas city stakes..you know spouting all this book learning does not trump wisdom.which to many are in to big hrury to aquier be fore they sshoot off and get us in the troubles we now have..the peter principle rains supreme the old viking
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Mississippi Red
Stoke City: ugly football that works
05:52 PM on 06/20/2011
You really should read more than just the abstract. Also read the follow up studies. The conclusions are not what you paint them to be. Photosynthetic organisms benefit up to a point from increased CO2 (and some do not at all). But ever-increasing CO2 does not mean ever-increasing CO2 absorption by plants.

You parade talking points, but they do not stand up to scrutiny.
photo
bespoken
My micro bio is filled with emptiness
11:33 AM on 06/21/2011
No doubt this one believes the moon landing never happened "conspiracy" too.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:00 PM on 06/20/2011
Whatever humans do, it has to happen before the permafrost melts. When all that methane goes into the atmosphere increasing greenhouse gases exponentially, we're doomed. Nothing we can do will be enough or fast enough. Game over.
03:45 PM on 06/20/2011
Wrong - plants are already gobbling up CO2 a LOT faster than we are producing it - and their rate of absorption is accelerating faster than our acceleration of emission. Global plant life is sucking CO2 at 123 GT a year and increasing 6% every 18 years as the earth warms, (ask any tropical plant - it likes warmth, water, sunlight and ... CO2). Humans emit about 10 GT a year.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5993/834.abstract
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
danielboone
04:05 PM on 06/20/2011
These guys will never stop! Oh me Oh my the sky is falling the sky is falling. When will they learn that we are not buying this bull anymore! They did not learn after their leaked e-mails did they that we are on to them! They are fear mongers out for one thing tax money and power which we are suppose to give to them!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Mississippi Red
Stoke City: ugly football that works
05:55 PM on 06/20/2011
As I metioned somewhere else, the study (2003) cited above does not claim this. And other studies do not support the Cuda's argument either. Yeah, yeah, wheres the link?

Just search Google scholar- I'm not your research assistant.
02:45 PM on 06/20/2011
Yeahhhhhhhh....Riiiiiiiight
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OldHick
02:24 PM on 06/20/2011
The cat is holding the bag. The real ocean problems stem from pollution - the deliberate dumping of materials, even nuclear waste. In addition, ships scour the bottom hunting for food species, leaving a muddy ocean in their wake. No discussion of this in the article. Finally, countries like Russia, and China are fishing for primary foodstuffs used by species higher in the food chain - such as krill. the ocean requires protection and wildlife refuges, to keep from turning into a wasteland.
04:16 PM on 06/20/2011
All of those are legitimate and important concerns. But none of it will matter if the ph of the oceans continues to fall.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nellre
growth is not sustainable
02:24 PM on 06/20/2011
"What do you think...? Should we continue our indulgent fossil fuel habit assuming that scientists will actually find the "Vroom" before it's too late? Or do we just say 'No' to fossil fuels?"

It's not what I think we should do that counts, it's up to our governments. And that's not looking so good.
I do think we'll need some miracles to save civilization as we know it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Bogstomper2
Secular conservative
01:42 PM on 06/20/2011
Here's a question for my conservative compadres who are in denial about climate change and ocean acidification. Conservatism is mainly about preserving the good ideas and lessons of the past. That means a rational conservative doesn't ignore the past, and our past includes many examples of people having to change our ways to avoid environmental catastrophes. From burning rivers to the Great Smog of London to CFCs depleting the ozone, we've seen countless examples of the dangers of unintended consequence to our environment and ultimately our survival. And we've managed to adjust without civilization collapsing.

Now when we're faced with the biggest unintended consequence in human history, you pretend that it's just a bunch of greenies being alarmed. You tell us it's "arrogant" to think we can affect our environment. You get all drama queeny about how fixing the problem will "destroy" America. You ignore the past and choose to see an imaginary world.

Question: who convinced you to quit being conservative?
03:08 PM on 06/20/2011
How can a warming ocean give up more CO2 than it absorbs and yet be "acidified" by it?

How much CO2 has been in out atmosphere in earth's prehistoric past? http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html Plants LOVE having more CO2, they're gobbling it up at a faster rate of increase than we can increase our emission of it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
06:51 PM on 06/20/2011
How can you ignore reading the scientific research. Your questions are absurd and meaningless.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Bogstomper2
Secular conservative
12:21 AM on 06/21/2011
Arguing with climate change deniers is like arguing with creationists, which I've been doing for a long time. All I ever get from people like you is endless repetition of the same talking points, endless links to the same sources that don't say what you claim they say, endless word games, endless cherry-picking and quote mining, and endless hypocrisy in your data selectivity.

Your behavior is despicable, and you don't matter any more. The damage has been done, but there are enough of us trying to fix it that we can probably pull it off without the worst of all possible outcomes.

So you and your friends who want to attack America by weakening our science capability as well as our ability to respond to this unfolding ecological disaster have fun swapping lies amongst yourselves. Just don't expect to be treated as a rational debater until you learn how to act like one.