Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 25 June 2009, 00:54:44
-
terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired, terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired, it's that wretched Nickbat droning on again, I hear you say. :-[
But read this and consider.
In essence, President Obama decided to push the US Environmental Protection Agency to list CO2 as a dangerous pollutant (which, of course, it isn't). It will tie the US to crippling emissions cuts which many have said will cause the country's economy to tank. Note that China and Russia have refused to cut CO2 emissions. Note also that the UK economy is closely tied to that of the US.
The EPA decided to allow the public to comment before they went ahead with this plan and the deadline was yesterday (or maybe the day before, I can't remember exactly) and many, many people submitted their views.
The only trouble is that a leaked email, dated March, shows that not only was internal dissent squashed, but that the decision to go ahead with listing had already been taken. So the public consultation exercise was a complete scam. >:(
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/06/epa-suppresses-dissent-and-opinion-and.html
It has caused widespread dismay, but the mainstream media will no doubt laud the expected passing of the Waxman-Markey Bill in the US Congress tomorrow, which many respected thinkers reckon will effectively kill off the US economy.
I know, I know, you don't really care. I believe you should.
I reckon that this week could go down in history as the time that the US attempted economic suicide. >:(
Can anyone speak Mandarin? ;)
-
Yep i can speak fluent mandarin and it goes like this I`ll have a number 33,27,89,56 please....Oh and 2 cans of coke as well please..... ::)
-
morning nickbat - won't argue over the rights and wrongs of greenhouse gas/climate change, etc - but just to pick up a small point - CO2 is highly toxic - now - i'd have to look it up (which it's too early to do) but i remember thousands people dying in Africa 20yrs ago through CO2 poisoning - it was a lake with a volcano under it - released a load of CO2 and wiped out a whole community :(
not relevant to the debate really - but interesting all the same
as far as sneaking this emissions reduction through, Obama stated openly in the election he was committed to reduce CO2 emissions, so he's just following through on a promise (unlike most politicians :y)
-
ok - i couldnt rest, Lake Nyos it was
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
terrible tragedy - 1700 people, along with twice as many livestock were suffocated :(
completely natural disaster tho, not man-made - just FYI
-
Good morning Nickbat.. I always read your threads with a high interest :y
Now after reading this I stop and think,
before taking actions I'm sure Obama take the whispers from the "advisors" which can be translated that they are planning to earn extra money and they have their precautions..
and asking to the masses as usual is a show..
-
terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired, terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired, it's that wretched Nickbat droning on again, I hear you say. :-[
But read this and consider.
In essence, President Obama decided to push the US Environmental Protection Agency to list CO2 as a dangerous pollutant (which, of course, it isn't). It will tie the US to crippling emissions cuts which many have said will cause the country's economy to tank. Note that China and Russia have refused to cut CO2 emissions. Note also that the UK economy is closely tied to that of the US.
The EPA decided to allow the public to comment before they went ahead with this plan and the deadline was yesterday (or maybe the day before, I can't remember exactly) and many, many people submitted their views.
The only trouble is that a leaked email, dated March, shows that not only was internal dissent squashed, but that the decision to go ahead with listing had already been taken. So the public consultation exercise was a complete scam. >:(
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/06/epa-suppresses-dissent-and-opinion-and.html
It has caused widespread dismay, but the mainstream media will no doubt laud the expected passing of the Waxman-Markey Bill in the US Congress tomorrow, which many respected thinkers reckon will effectively kill off the US economy.
I know, I know, you don't really care. I believe you should.
I reckon that this week could go down in history as the time that the US attempted economic suicide. >:(
Can anyone speak Mandarin? ;)
Definition of pollutant "A pollutant is a waste material that pollutes air, water or soil." (http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0228.gif) (http://www.smoking-alternative.co.uk/)
I wonder exactly how the U.S government could earn out of this (thats what it's all about anyway)
-
What muppets! CO2 is only dangerous in the same way as water is. If you have an abundance of it such that there is no oxygen to breathe it can cause a few issues, but is there a substance in existence for which that isn't true?
How do Coca Cola get away with selling soft drinks containing "dangerous pollutants"?
.. and it seems they take the same view of consultations as our government do. It's a box they have to tick on their "ram it through regardless" form. I've lost count of the number of consultations I've responded to, normally because one or other of my pastimes is about to be shafted. Never does any good.
Kevin
-
can we have a new sleeping smiley please? ;D
-
terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired, terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired, it's that wretched Nickbat droning on again, I hear you say. :-[
But read this and consider.
In essence, President Obama decided to push the US Environmental Protection Agency to list CO2 as a dangerous pollutant (which, of course, it isn't). It will tie the US to crippling emissions cuts which many have said will cause the country's economy to tank. Note that China and Russia have refused to cut CO2 emissions. Note also that the UK economy is closely tied to that of the US.
The EPA decided to allow the public to comment before they went ahead with this plan and the deadline was yesterday (or maybe the day before, I can't remember exactly) and many, many people submitted their views.
The only trouble is that a leaked email, dated March, shows that not only was internal dissent squashed, but that the decision to go ahead with listing had already been taken. So the public consultation exercise was a complete scam. >:(
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/06/epa-suppresses-dissent-and-opinion-and.html
It has caused widespread dismay, but the mainstream media will no doubt laud the expected passing of the Waxman-Markey Bill in the US Congress tomorrow, which many respected thinkers reckon will effectively kill off the US economy.
I know, I know, you don't really care. I believe you should.
I reckon that this week could go down in history as the time that the US attempted economic suicide. >:(
Can anyone speak Mandarin? ;)
Not at all Nick, as you bring many great debating issues to light which otherwise many of us would never see! :y :y :y :y :y :y Like me you love political discussion, and that may make others terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired, but never me!! :D :D :D Keep them coming! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
As for the USA, I am a great supporter of the belief that for all our sakes we require an economically, politically, and militarily strong United States of America. They help maintain western democracy by providing that all important defensive shield over Europe, which yes is primarily for America's benefit, but which has let us all live relatively worry free for over 60 years.
If the USA's 'empire' collaspses and they have to pull out of their world policing role, it will be a repeat of when the Western Roman empire started to collapse in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. Unless we start rebuilding Britain's military capacity up to the 'two power standard' of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, then we will be unable to hold back our enemies with a type of Dark Ages descending! :'( :'( :'( :'(
In short we require a strong USA to under pin our economy and way of life!! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) Long live the United States of America
(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/lizziefreeman/USA.png)
(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/lizziefreeman/Picture1.png)
-
Along these lines Ms Zoom?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1NR2K-gazo&feature=related[/media]
-
terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired, terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired, it's that wretched Nickbat droning on again, I hear you say. :-[
But read this and consider.
In essence, President Obama decided to push the US Environmental Protection Agency to list CO2 as a dangerous pollutant (which, of course, it isn't). It will tie the US to crippling emissions cuts which many have said will cause the country's economy to tank. Note that China and Russia have refused to cut CO2 emissions. Note also that the UK economy is closely tied to that of the US.
The EPA decided to allow the public to comment before they went ahead with this plan and the deadline was yesterday (or maybe the day before, I can't remember exactly) and many, many people submitted their views.
The only trouble is that a leaked email, dated March, shows that not only was internal dissent squashed, but that the decision to go ahead with listing had already been taken. So the public consultation exercise was a complete scam. >:(
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/06/epa-suppresses-dissent-and-opinion-and.html
It has caused widespread dismay, but the mainstream media will no doubt laud the expected passing of the Waxman-Markey Bill in the US Congress tomorrow, which many respected thinkers reckon will effectively kill off the US economy.
I know, I know, you don't really care. I believe you should.
I reckon that this week could go down in history as the time that the US attempted economic suicide. >:(
Can anyone speak Mandarin? ;)
There's no way I am going to read all that is on that site; the name puts me off immediately. Anyone who says they 'love' carbon dioxide has to be unbalanced.
To take one part of a quotation......To be anti-carbon is to be anti-life and anti-human". - Viv Forbes, Pasture Manager, Soil Scientist and Geologist
That is a very emotive statement and I think a dis-service to any intelligent discussion.
In any feedback system, the system 'opposes' a parameter that has got out of tolerable range - so our power steering 'opposes' turning right when the wheels are being asked to point left. Similarly people are 'opposing' carbon dioxide generation while they think it is too prolific (or destined to be too prolific). That is not an unqualified opposition to carbon as is implied in the statement above. President Obama has obviously taken seriously the evidence that CO2 levels are rising too fast, and to the extent that he will trade part of the USA's economy for the 'greater good'. It is an altruistic gamble in that (if he's right) he stands to save the competition (China & India) without them risking their economies in the same way.
The simple (?) feedback system for global CO2 is that when the levels increase, so does the forestation and a new equilibrium is achieved. We are preventing the reforestation by annihilating it so the primary feedback mechanism is being crippled.
I happen to think he is on the right track at present on this issue. :)
-
Along these lines Ms Zoom?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1NR2K-gazo&feature=related[/media]
How did your cat play that with one paw? :D
-
Along these lines Ms Zoom?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1NR2K-gazo&feature=related[/media]
Lovely Zulu, I had tears in my eyes listening to that, with my hand over my heart, remembering my American friends, one of whom has passed away, and the great times I had with the real American people in the center of the United States :'( :'( :'( :'( :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
As you probably can tell I am very pro-America after being in contact with Americans most of my life, and in another existance would proudly be a United States citizen :-* :-* :-* :-* Difficult thing really as I am proud to be British.......and have Maltese roots......along with my love of the USA!! ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired, terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired, it's that wretched Nickbat droning on again, I hear you say. :-[
But read this and consider.
In essence, President Obama decided to push the US Environmental Protection Agency to list CO2 as a dangerous pollutant (which, of course, it isn't). It will tie the US to crippling emissions cuts which many have said will cause the country's economy to tank. Note that China and Russia have refused to cut CO2 emissions. Note also that the UK economy is closely tied to that of the US.
The EPA decided to allow the public to comment before they went ahead with this plan and the deadline was yesterday (or maybe the day before, I can't remember exactly) and many, many people submitted their views.
The only trouble is that a leaked email, dated March, shows that not only was internal dissent squashed, but that the decision to go ahead with listing had already been taken. So the public consultation exercise was a complete scam. >:(
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/06/epa-suppresses-dissent-and-opinion-and.html
It has caused widespread dismay, but the mainstream media will no doubt laud the expected passing of the Waxman-Markey Bill in the US Congress tomorrow, which many respected thinkers reckon will effectively kill off the US economy.
I know, I know, you don't really care. I believe you should.
I reckon that this week could go down in history as the time that the US attempted economic suicide. >:(
Can anyone speak Mandarin? ;)
Yes, you're a very naughty Nickbat [smiley=evil.gif] but the contribution you make here is immeasurable :y :y - it's one of the many things that make this forum matter much more than the content of its primary brief.
There is indeed an indication that the lust to appear to be in the driving seat concerning climate change will have some effect on the economic profile of those countries that deem it worth implementing. It seems to be a rather binary debate to me. Common sense has kicked into the gutter.
The willingness of the media to be spoon-fed such information doesn’t surprise me in the least. Most of the interaction between the legislature and those who are charged with dissemination the information offered seems to be based on the slickness of its presentation alone.
That's a bad thing - but it seems to be the way that good hard-nosed reporting on these and other important matters is being elbowed to one side in favour of this wholly disingenuous, chummy approach.
It's bare-faced manipulation of the media in short.
-
Good morning Nickbat.. I always read your threads with a high interest :y
Now after reading this I stop and think,
before taking actions I'm sure Obama take the whispers from the "advisors" which can be translated that they are planning to earn extra money and they have their precautions..
and asking to the masses as usual is a show..
............once again cem makes an important point :y :y
-
Yep i can speak fluent mandarin and it goes like this I`ll have a number 33,27,89,56 please....Oh and 2 cans of coke as well please..... ::)
Bertie - what about my curry chips?????? ;D :y
-
morning nickbat - won't argue over the rights and wrongs of greenhouse gas/climate change, etc - but just to pick up a small point - CO2 is highly toxic - now - i'd have to look it up (which it's too early to do) but i remember thousands people dying in Africa 20yrs ago through CO2 poisoning - it was a lake with a volcano under it - released a load of CO2 and wiped out a whole community :(
not relevant to the debate really - but interesting all the same
as far as sneaking this emissions reduction through, Obama stated openly in the election he was committed to reduce CO2 emissions, so he's just following through on a promise (unlike most politicians :y)
.....I hope the following does not have relevance bannjaxx :-/ :-/ :-/
She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth scene V
Courtesy; http://shakespeare.mit.edu/
-
What muppets! CO2 is only dangerous in the same way as water is. If you have an abundance of it such that there is no oxygen to breathe it can cause a few issues, but is there a substance in existence for which that isn't true?
How do Coca Cola get away with selling soft drinks containing "dangerous pollutants"?
.. and it seems they take the same view of consultations as our government do. It's a box they have to tick on their "ram it through regardless" form. I've lost count of the number of consultations I've responded to, normally because one or other of my pastimes is about to be shafted. Never does any good.Kevin
..............once again Kevin calls it like it is :y :y
-
Along these lines Ms Zoom?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1NR2K-gazo&feature=related[/media]
Lovely Zulu, I had tears in my eyes listening to that, with my hand over my heart, remembering my American friends, one of whom has passed away, and the great times I had with the real American people in the center of the United States :'( :'( :'( :'( :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
As you probably can tell I am very pro-America after being in contact with Americans most of my life, and in another existance would proudly be a United States citizen :-* :-* :-* :-* Difficult thing really as I am proud to be British.......and have Maltese roots......along with my love of the USA!! ::) ::) ::) ::)
.....have I known you in another life Ms Zoom? 8-) 8-) 8-)
I do get pissed with the US at times but invariably that annoyance falls upon the ‘trendies’ situated on either seaboard.
The real America lies away from either coast - an America of ordinary, hardworking, innovative and uncomplicated people.
A land of topographical extremes that simply astound and while I do get lit up over the need for a stronger more independent Britain, without the US remaining strong we, and many other nations, would be in a much more precarious position.
-
Along these lines Ms Zoom?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1NR2K-gazo&feature=related[/media]
How did your cat play that with one paw? :D
....He's a really cool cat, Chris - he got others to do the work while he conducted proceedings 8-) 8-) 8-) :y
-
terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired, terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired, it's that wretched Nickbat droning on again, I hear you say. :-[
But read this and consider.
In essence, President Obama decided to push the US Environmental Protection Agency to list CO2 as a dangerous pollutant (which, of course, it isn't). It will tie the US to crippling emissions cuts which many have said will cause the country's economy to tank. Note that China and Russia have refused to cut CO2 emissions. Note also that the UK economy is closely tied to that of the US.
The EPA decided to allow the public to comment before they went ahead with this plan and the deadline was yesterday (or maybe the day before, I can't remember exactly) and many, many people submitted their views.
The only trouble is that a leaked email, dated March, shows that not only was internal dissent squashed, but that the decision to go ahead with listing had already been taken. So the public consultation exercise was a complete scam. >:(
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/06/epa-suppresses-dissent-and-opinion-and.html
It has caused widespread dismay, but the mainstream media will no doubt laud the expected passing of the Waxman-Markey Bill in the US Congress tomorrow, which many respected thinkers reckon will effectively kill off the US economy.
I know, I know, you don't really care. I believe you should.
I reckon that this week could go down in history as the time that the US attempted economic suicide. >:(
Can anyone speak Mandarin? ;)
Definition of pollutant "A pollutant is a waste material that pollutes air, water or soil." (http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0228.gif) (http://www.smoking-alternative.co.uk/)
I wonder exactly how the U.S government could earn out of this (thats what it's all about anyway)
Not necessarily US governent earn, some rich traders -who also whispers to "advisors"- prepared and ready for the scenario will earn..
In the last and current crysis does US earn anything , no.. but I hope you dont believe this money is evaporized..
And actually most of the time game is so deeper than we see outside..
-
Along these lines Ms Zoom?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1NR2K-gazo&feature=related[/media]
Lovely Zulu, I had tears in my eyes listening to that, with my hand over my heart, remembering my American friends, one of whom has passed away, and the great times I had with the real American people in the center of the United States :'( :'( :'( :'( :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
As you probably can tell I am very pro-America after being in contact with Americans most of my life, and in another existance would proudly be a United States citizen :-* :-* :-* :-* Difficult thing really as I am proud to be British.......and have Maltese roots......along with my love of the USA!! ::) ::) ::) ::)
.....have I known you in another life Ms Zoom? 8-) 8-) 8-)
I do get pissed with the US at times but invariably that annoyance falls upon the ‘trendies’ situated on either seaboard.
The real America lies away from either coast - an America of ordinary, hardworking, innovative and uncomplicated people.
A land of topographical extremes that simply astound and while I do get lit up over the need for a stronger more independent Britain, without the US remaining strong we, and many other nations, would be in a much more precarious position.
Indeed Zulu, with the political stances, and action, taken by the Americans sometimes of an appalling nature. But overall the massive good outweighs the little bad, and I would sooner Britain has very close ties with the USA than, say, Iran, France, or even Germany another natural ally of Britain. Indeed our very existance may very well depend on it, economically, politically, and of course militarily, unless, as I stated before, we boost our military and especially the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, to a two power standard. But I doubt we will ever afford that for many reasons, including the demands of the social movement in Britain which dictates the politics of the modern western liberal state, even with that being erroded by the need for security, which once more the USA is a crucial part of.
As for Nick's environmental issue of carbon omissions and the USA, I really do believe that Obama is intent on working towards an improved situation. But, as with Britain, it will take time and money, lots of it, and there is always the very thin line between achieving reduced carbon omissions on one side, and destroying your industrial economy on the other. For other reasons of course the American car industry is in dramatic decline, so faced with mass unemployment already the President is making some very tough and brave decisions based on 'consultants' advice, which is the one very worrying element. But every political or commercial leader does require specialist advise. Is that advise worthy, and impartial, is the big question, and my personal experience with 'consultants' is not a happy one with them serving often just their own ends!
The big question throughout this subject is, are the Americans, British, along with the rest of Europe prepared to weaken its industrial and economic position on the altar of ecological thought, which in itself could be a false ideology, based on poor scientific observation and assumption? Is our freedom worth sacrificing for the doubtful environmental advantage when nature itself is the master of the event no matter what humankind does?
These questions will tax the political leaders of the western world for the next decade at least, and we can only pray, along with vote, that the right answers are arrived at, at the right time, for the right cost. ;) ;)
-
Along these lines Ms Zoom?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1NR2K-gazo&feature=related[/media]
Lovely Zulu, I had tears in my eyes listening to that, with my hand over my heart, remembering my American friends, one of whom has passed away, and the great times I had with the real American people in the center of the United States :'( :'( :'( :'( :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
As you probably can tell I am very pro-America after being in contact with Americans most of my life, and in another existance would proudly be a United States citizen :-* :-* :-* :-* Difficult thing really as I am proud to be British.......and have Maltese roots......along with my love of the USA!! ::) ::) ::) ::)
.....have I known you in another life Ms Zoom? 8-) 8-) 8-)
I do get pissed with the US at times but invariably that annoyance falls upon the ‘trendies’ situated on either seaboard.
The real America lies away from either coast - an America of ordinary, hardworking, innovative and uncomplicated people.
A land of topographical extremes that simply astound and while I do get lit up over the need for a stronger more independent Britain, without the US remaining strong we, and many other nations, would be in a much more precarious position.
Indeed Zulu, with the political stances, and action, taken by the Americans sometimes of an appalling nature. But overall the massive good outweighs the little bad, and I would sooner Britain has very close ties with the USA than, say, Iran, France, or even Germany another natural ally of Britain. Indeed our very existance may very well depend on it, economically, politically, and of course militarily, unless, as I stated before, we boost our military and especially the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, to a two power standard. But I doubt we will ever afford that for many reasons, including the demands of the social movement in Britain which dictates the politics of the modern western liberal state, even with that being erroded by the need for security, which once more the USA is a crucial part of.
As for Nick's environmental issue of carbon omissions and the USA, I really do believe that Obama is intent on working towards an improved situation. But, as with Britain, it will take time and money, lots of it, and there is always the very thin line between achieving reduced carbon omissions on one side, and destroying your industrial economy on the other. For other reasons of course the American car industry is in dramatic decline, so faced with mass unemployment already the President is making some very tough and brave decisions based on 'consultants' advice, which is the one very worrying element. But every political or commercial leader does require specialist advise. Is that advise worthy, and impartial, is the big question, and my personal experience with 'consultants' is not a happy one with them serving often just their own ends!
The big question throughout this subject is, are the Americans, British, along with the rest of Europe prepared to weaken its industrial and economic position on the altar of ecological thought, which in itself could be a false ideology, based on poor scientific observation and assumption? Is our freedom worth sacrificing for the doubtful environmental advantage when nature itself is the master of the event no matter what humankind does?
These questions will tax the political leaders of the western world for the next decade at least, and we can only pray, along with vote, that the right answers are arrived at, at the right time, for the right cost. ;) ;)
.....and she is the ultimate arbitor in all this Ms Zoom 8-)
Let's hope that all future debate will be informed, balanced and free from the inclination to be steered towards the application of financial penalty for not toeing the line :y :y
-
terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired, terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired, it's that wretched Nickbat droning on again, I hear you say. :-[
But read this and consider.
In essence, President Obama decided to push the US Environmental Protection Agency to list CO2 as a dangerous pollutant (which, of course, it isn't). It will tie the US to crippling emissions cuts which many have said will cause the country's economy to tank. Note that China and Russia have refused to cut CO2 emissions. Note also that the UK economy is closely tied to that of the US.
The EPA decided to allow the public to comment before they went ahead with this plan and the deadline was yesterday (or maybe the day before, I can't remember exactly) and many, many people submitted their views.
The only trouble is that a leaked email, dated March, shows that not only was internal dissent squashed, but that the decision to go ahead with listing had already been taken. So the public consultation exercise was a complete scam. >:(
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/06/epa-suppresses-dissent-and-opinion-and.html
It has caused widespread dismay, but the mainstream media will no doubt laud the expected passing of the Waxman-Markey Bill in the US Congress tomorrow, which many respected thinkers reckon will effectively kill off the US economy.
I know, I know, you don't really care. I believe you should.
I reckon that this week could go down in history as the time that the US attempted economic suicide. >:(
Can anyone speak Mandarin? ;)
There's no way I am going to read all that is on that site; the name puts me off immediately. Anyone who says they 'love' carbon dioxide has to be unbalanced.
To take one part of a quotation......To be anti-carbon is to be anti-life and anti-human". - Viv Forbes, Pasture Manager, Soil Scientist and Geologist
That is a very emotive statement and I think a dis-service to any intelligent discussion.
In any feedback system, the system 'opposes' a parameter that has got out of tolerable range - so our power steering 'opposes' turning right when the wheels are being asked to point left. Similarly people are 'opposing' carbon dioxide generation while they think it is too prolific (or destined to be too prolific). That is not an unqualified opposition to carbon as is implied in the statement above. President Obama has obviously taken seriously the evidence that CO2 levels are rising too fast, and to the extent that he will trade part of the USA's economy for the 'greater good'. It is an altruistic gamble in that (if he's right) he stands to save the competition (China & India) without them risking their economies in the same way.
The simple (?) feedback system for global CO2 is that when the levels increase, so does the forestation and a new equilibrium is achieved. We are preventing the reforestation by annihilating it so the primary feedback mechanism is being crippled.
I happen to think he is on the right track at present on this issue. :)
I linked to that site merely because its coverage was short. That said, carbon dioxide is indeed the gas of life. Although it makes up just 0.0385% of our atmosphere, at levels below 0.0150% all life would start to die out. Greenhouses regularly have CO2 levels at 0.1% to encourage growth. In houses, and other places where people are congregated, levels can comfortably reach up to 0.3% without any ill effects.
CO2 is NOT toxic. As Kevin pointed out, being slightly heavier than air it can, in massive concentrations, as at Lake Nyos (h/t Bannjaxx), displace oxygen - just as any many other gases can. In itself, it is NOT toxic - after all we breathe it every day.
There is no empirical evidence that correlates CO2 to climate change. It is based on a premise of unproven positive feedbacks in General Circulation Models. Essentially, it's junk science, as observational evidence does not back up the GCMs. To use a quote I read yesterday, it's "decision-based evidence making.
Incidentally, this year the average Arctic temperature has not yet exceeded zero degrees, the latest time in 50 years of record keeping. :o
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/arctic-temperature-is-still-not-above-0%C2%B0c-the-latest-date-in-fifty-years-of-record-keeping%E2%80%A6%E2%80%9D/
CO2 alarmists contend that global warming will happen most noticeably in the polar regions (hence the rubbish doom predictions of melting ice caps). Yet, here we are at 385ppm of CO2 and rising slowly, with the poles if anything getting colder.
I am an environmentally-concerned citizen, but I cannot and will not accept junk science furthered for political ends. I find it hard to believe that you think Obama is so altruistic that he would be happy to trade off the economy of the US so that China and Russia could flourish. He has other aims, I am sure. >:(
-
Actually, Obama want's to slap tarriffs on countries which don't adhere to his policies. Trade-war anyone?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/06/us-climate-panickers-plan-global-trade.html
:( :( :(
-
now looking in the complicated situation I'm sure the think thank organizations probably analysed the situation and probabilities and reported some solutions ..
and then these echoed and valued by the decision makers and finally turned into speech by Obama.. :-/
thats how it works in most govts..
but one point about the "consultants", they have good abilities that they make the presidents believe its his decision ;D
-
Actually, Obama want's to slap tarriffs on countries which don't adhere to his policies. Trade-war anyone?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/06/us-climate-panickers-plan-global-trade.html
:( :( :(
....is it just me or is that a bad (broken) link Nick?
-
Actually, Obama want's to slap tarriffs on countries which don't adhere to his policies. Trade-war anyone?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/06/us-climate-panickers-plan-global-trade.html
:( :( :(
....is it just me or is that a bad (broken) link Nick?
That link is ok for me Zulu ;) ;)
-
......and in regards to that link.........
I will not repeat what I have already stated in this thread on this issue, but to,........ quote:
"I wonder whether the green nutcases will also start to threaten the skeptical world with nuclear weapons. You may choose: 0.5 °C of man-made warming (or cooling) in the 21st century, or a global nuclear Armageddon? Which of these two "catastrophes" is worse? ;-) The laws of Nature imply that we will only get the first one (i.e. nothing happens) if we manage to stop the fanatics but the historical experience suggests that we may get both if we will fail to do so."
.....................is way OTT! Why bring nuclear war into the equation? For dramatic effect I suppose, but it is so way off! Nuclear war over environmental issues? Over oil, water, political ideology, Afghanistan, maybe, but who would bring nuclear conflict into this issue but someone running out of sound argument. As for the "historical" reference, when was nuclear weapons used to make a state, and the world stop and think beyond Hiroshima and Nagasaki??
Obama is the last US President to use nuclear weapons over environmental and trade issues. He, and all his advisors know the outcome such a move would produce, with the world shuddering at the very thought! :o :o :o
No, reference to nuclear war is purely shock tactics by one side against the other and is totally irresponsible. >:( >:( >:(
-
I linked to that site merely because its coverage was short. That said, carbon dioxide is indeed the gas of life. Although it makes up just 0.0385% of our atmosphere, at levels below 0.0150% all life would start to die out. Greenhouses regularly have CO2 levels at 0.1% to encourage growth. In houses, and other places where people are congregated, levels can comfortably reach up to 0.3% without any ill effects.
CO2 is NOT toxic. As Kevin pointed out, being slightly heavier than air it can, in massive concentrations, as at Lake Nyos (h/t Bannjaxx), displace oxygen - just as any many other gases can. In itself, it is NOT toxic - after all we breathe it every day.
There is no empirical evidence that correlates CO2 to climate change. It is based on a premise of unproven positive feedbacks in General Circulation Models. Essentially, it's junk science, as observational evidence does not back up the GCMs. To use a quote I read yesterday, it's "decision-based evidence making.
Incidentally, this year the average Arctic temperature has not yet exceeded zero degrees, the latest time in 50 years of record keeping. :o
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/arctic-temperature-is-still-not-above-0%C2%B0c-the-latest-date-in-fifty-years-of-record-keeping%E2%80%A6%E2%80%9D/
CO2 alarmists contend that global warming will happen most noticeably in the polar regions (hence the rubbish doom predictions of melting ice caps). Yet, here we are at 385ppm of CO2 and rising slowly, with the poles if anything getting colder.
I am an environmentally-concerned citizen, but I cannot and will not accept junk science furthered for political ends. I find it hard to believe that you think Obama is so altruistic that he would be happy to trade off the economy of the US so that China and Russia could flourish. He has other aims, I am sure. >:(
CO2 alarmists contend that global warming will happen most noticeably in the polar regions (hence the rubbish doom predictions of melting ice caps). Yet, here we are at 385ppm of CO2 and rising slowly, with the poles if anything getting colder.
..........should anyone examine the model of ice movement from 1978 to 2009 as illustrated in the following link?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/31/arctic-sea-ice-time-lapse-from-1978-to-2009-using-nsidc-data/
....it's plain to see that the effect of planetary warming on the polar caps is debateable to say the least – who can one believe?
The one thing that does concern me however is the volatile nature of this ebb and flow.
While the temperature may not have risen to above 0 degrees, has the mean temperature been accurately accessed and does the result show an upward tendency? Has the ice coverage but more importantly its density been effected following the summer melt over the years - there seems to be doubt, but the lack of a definitive model does little to answer this speculation.
It seems to me that there are fluctuations in ice formation in the polar regions and also that it might well be premature to discount changing planetary weather patterns as being involved in some way or other.
he would be happy to trade off the economy of the US so that China and Russia could flourish.
...I agree Nick - that is very unlikely and yes, the agenda might well be a very different one to that many would expect.
-
......and in regards to that link.........
I will not repeat what I have already stated in this thread on this issue, but to,........ quote:
"I wonder whether the green nutcases will also start to threaten the skeptical world with nuclear weapons. You may choose: 0.5 °C of man-made warming (or cooling) in the 21st century, or a global nuclear Armageddon? Which of these two "catastrophes" is worse? ;-) The laws of Nature imply that we will only get the first one (i.e. nothing happens) if we manage to stop the fanatics but the historical experience suggests that we may get both if we will fail to do so."
.....................is way OTT! Why bring nuclear war into the equation? For dramatic effect I suppose, but it is so way off! Nuclear war over environmental issues? Over oil, water, political ideology, Afghanistan, maybe, but who would bring nuclear conflict into this issue but someone running out of sound argument. As for the "historical" reference, when was nuclear weapons used to make a state, and the world stop and think beyond Hiroshima and Nagasaki??
Obama is the last US President to use nuclear weapons over environmental and trade issues. He, and all his advisors know the outcome such a move would produce, with the world shuddering at the very thought! :o :o :o
No, reference to nuclear war is purely shock tactics by one side against the other and is totally irresponsible. >:( >:( >:(
Lizzie, I should point out that Lubos Motl has an acerbic sense of humour. I rather think it was a tongue-in-cheek comment, parodying recent comments by alarmists on the web that climate sceptics should be put on trial or executed - yes, really. :(