The Berkeley Earth Study group released its findings this week, and it kicks the anti-global warming crowds azz worse than we kicked Auburn's. The group has four papers out for peer review. The bottom line analysis, by the team of mostly phyicsists, is that the three "big" climate studies are in fact consistent and show that the earth's temperature is in fact rising. I won't copy and paste, but you can read about the study here. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011) Gosh, I feel like I am tossing out a "redfish magic" spinner to a school of feeding redfish. Not my intent. Really.
I don't have time to read much this morning but will say I drove my huge SUV to the game yesterday and plan to do it again for future games. If you have time please do me a favor and cut and paste the portion which proves it's ALL manmade and not cyclical. Next...if the sky is falling why are the people leading this effort not significantly changing their habits? If you want to change your "carbon footprint"...be my guest. If you want to use this "science" for political power or to milk the taxpayers...go to hell. If "man-made" global warming is the issue then allow the market to create solutions. I don't want wasted billions going to failed projects such as Solyndra or Evergreen. That's all for now. I've got things to do before burning fossil fuel getting to the Saints' game. :thumb:
Irrelevant. I have done so many times and you don't read that either. You believe what you want to believe and ignore all evidence to the contrary. They are. I have shot down this sad argument many times, as well. Because the market chases only profits (as is proper). Some solutions are profitable -- wind power for instance. Others are not profitable, like replacing obsolete, polluting factories with newer, greener factories. These companies need incentives to do so and can get them through cap and trade policies. Still other efforts will lose money for years before eventually producing profits -- research and development efforts for instance. Gravity, magnetics, and zero-point technologies consume money now, but when perfected will change the way we live. It takes government-sized pockets to support efforts that lose money for decades before delivering results -- NASA for instance.
Exactly. The world's scientific experts on climatology have issued a comprehensive report to document anthropogenic global warming. Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
How about building more nuclear power plants? Is everyone onboard with it? Or are there still people who think they'll start glowing green with one nearby?
Nuclear is a mixed bag. It would definitely help clear up the carbon problem, but it ain't cheap and it comes with an equally nasty environmental problem. With four major nuclear disasters already on the books, it is inevitable that there will be more. Plus we are making tons and tons of long-life waste at every plant that is just sitting in drums waiting for another accident. I think we have little choice but to utilize nuclear power in the next 25 years, but we must also get really stringent with regulations and codes and we must get that nuclear waste repository in Nevada back on line and get the waste stored properly.
I'll do my part. I found a great "green" car that gets 19 miles a gallon. Of course, it's made in Finland and cost $97,000 but the production was funded with my tax dollars, so it's all good. Obama Green Jobs Triumph: $529 Million U.S. Taxpayer Loan Creates 500 Jobs – In Finland - HUMAN EVENTS
