backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 239 comment(s) - last by gorbush.. on Jul 3 at 3:40 AM

Arizona may become the first state to ban costly legislation based on climate change theory.
One state looks to ensure its citizens do not have to pay for climate change efforts

Climate change is a controversial topic.  Some believe man is causing the world to warm.  Others point out that the Earth has undergone solar warming and cooling for millions of years and that current temperatures are well within historic levels.  A recent report challenging AGW theory showed significant support with 31,478 U.S. researchers and scientists, many of whom hold Ph.D's, signing a statement that they believe that man has not played a part in the current warming trend.

Arizona is now close to becoming the first state to outlaw climate change legislation.  The state Senate voted Monday, 19-10 to approve a bill banning the Department of Environmental Quality from enacting or enforcing measures with language pertaining to climate change.  The bill is now awaiting House approval.

The bill will likely pass and be signed into law thanks to a switch in power.  Formerly, Janet Napolitano (D) was governor of the state, but she left to join Barack Obama's Cabinet.  Napolitano was replaced by Jan Brewer (R), who has not indicated a strong desire to support AGW theorists.

If Senate Bill 1147 passes it will block rules passed by the DEQ that set harsher emission standards.  The proposed increases were hastily pushed through by the former governor, despite complaints from industry leaders.  It would also end work on "cap and trade" carbon legislation, which has been opposed by the utility industry.  Such a scheme could help to raise power prices for the state's citizens significantly.

A passage could also give the state means to challenge the federal government in court over the proposed Waxman-Markey bill, which would put over $1,600 in yearly costs on American citizens to cut carbon emissions.  The legislation, which has also received criticism for potentially hurting farmers, is currently making its way through a Democrat controlled House and Senate, awaiting Barack Obama's approval.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Michael Andrews
By Bonrock on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Andrews
By mandrews on 6/24/2009 5:56:24 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, I am not an editor, but rather a blogger and occasional columnist for DailyTech. I am also in no way affiliated with Fox News, if that needs to be said, though I think there would be nothing wrong if I was.

Did you have some issue with the content of the article itself, which you would like to discuss?


RE: Michael Andrews
By GeorgeOu on 6/24/2009 6:04:24 PM , Rating: 3
Not even worth answering that troll. Those people have no way to rebut the content so they're going to attack the author.


RE: Michael Andrews
By Hvordan on 6/24/2009 6:14:10 PM , Rating: 1
The $1600 I'm assuming is the number from the CBO analysis which was not analysing the Waxman-Markey bill. The Waxman-Markey estimate was significantly lower (although I can't remember the number off the top of my head).


RE: Michael Andrews
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 9:32:29 AM , Rating: 2
What the estimate from those trying to pass the bill was lower than the budget office? No....


RE: Michael Andrews
By Bonrock on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Andrews
By mandrews on 6/24/2009 6:39:10 PM , Rating: 5
You can think whatever you will of me, but I believe the facts on this topic speak for themselves.

If you can not find a specific statement that you believe to be erroneous, then there's really nothing more to say on the topic.


RE: Michael Andrews
By Lifted on 6/24/2009 9:00:21 PM , Rating: 1
Do you have any relation to Michael Asher? Did you take over the environmental articles since that appears to be all you "blog" on?


RE: Michael Andrews
By Hvordan on 6/25/2009 5:22:09 AM , Rating: 3
1. The report by the NIPCC is a rehash of talking points relating to AGW. A report is a good start for a rebuttal of AGW, some published science to back it up would be better.

2. The same sentence is also misleading. 31k sciententists have not endorsed the report (which is pointed out in the report itself), but rather a statement claiming that proposed limits on greenhouse gases is bad for the environment, AGW is bunk, and more CO2 is good for plants and animals.

3. $1,600 for Waxman-Markey is another weasly statement. This is the CBO estimate for a %15 carbon emission by 2020. It does not relate to Waxman-Markey specifically. The CBO estimate of W-M was $175 per year, a far cry from the $1,600.


RE: Michael Andrews
By autoboy on 6/24/2009 6:45:20 PM , Rating: 3
Bonrock, maybe you should do your part to reduce carbon emissions and just roll over and die. Apparently, a dissenting opinion is not valued by you. If you actually did any research on your own about Anthropogenic Global Warming, and actually discussed dissenting opinions instead of writing them off as mentally disabled, then you would see that there are valid arguments from both sides, and as such AGW needs to be debated, instead of just pushed through claiming "consensus".

Or maybe you are just too dense to hold a job and don't pay any taxes while you waste away in your parents basement oblivious to increases in the price of food, goods, and energy.


RE: Michael Andrews
By Bonrock on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Andrews
By omnicronx on 6/24/2009 6:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yet you still have not cited what you consider questionable. Whats the point of calling out the author if all you can say is 'so many questionable figures'. Give us some links that justify your claims. Otherwise your claims mean absolutely nothing. (thus the troll comment)


RE: Michael Andrews
By KaTaR on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Andrews
By Emma on 6/30/2009 10:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I can't believe this article uses the Heartland Institute as a credible source.
It has previously received funding from the tobacco industry to oppose restrictions on smoking and criticising the science behind the harm of second-hand smoke.
It also received $560,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.
It even has a 'global warming expert', Gerd-Rainer Weber, from the German Coal Mining Association. No conflict there!


RE: Michael Andrews
By KCjoker on 6/24/2009 6:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
Since you don't like this sites info why don't you do us all a favor and stop coming here. Go read info from MSNBC because we all know they aren't bias. /sarcasm off


RE: Michael Andrews
By omnicronx on 6/24/2009 6:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
Haven't you heard? Bashing DT writers is the new thing!

Personally I find it hilarious that someone would stop and take the time to make such a comment. If you don't like what DT has to offer, then why are you reading their articles?


RE: Michael Andrews
By KaTaR on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Andrews
By FaaR on 6/24/2009 11:35:03 PM , Rating: 1
The man merely reports the news, he doesn't make it up, dude.

If you don't like that there's different opinions on various matters out there, I'd suggest putting a brown paper bag over your head and not leaving your home again, ever. ;)


Selfish
By matt0401 on 6/24/2009 11:03:02 PM , Rating: 2
"One state looks to ensure its citizens do not have to pay for climate change efforts"

Doesn't this seem a little selfish? It's like a kindergartner rebelliously claiming that he didn't make the mess and he won't do his share come cleanup time.




RE: Selfish
By Boze on 6/25/2009 12:01:55 AM , Rating: 2
How is it selfish? Is it not more childish to simply stand around with your fingers in your ears, yelling, "I'm not listening!" to anyone who has something to say that you don't like hearing? Isn't it even more childish to just take someone's word at face value and not ensure that they're absolutely correct before you go off on whatever half-baked path they want to put you on?


RE: Selfish
By matt0401 on 6/25/2009 12:12:46 AM , Rating: 4
Yes. This is why it's generally accepted that humans have contributed to climate change. It's been put through the scientific method and pretty much proven. So, short answer, yes it is indeed childish to "stand around with your fingers in your ears, yelling, I'm not listening!" to those devoted to science who are studying climate change.

I'm sure when the Earth was discovered to be round there were dissenters. It seems people need something to rebel against. Perhaps they should try something where they aren't stacked up against 99% of the world's scientific community.


RE: Selfish
By Boze on 6/25/2009 12:33:22 AM , Rating: 2
Where are you getting this 99% figure? The last time I had seen a conclusive and exhaustive study done detailed around a 58% agreement on the theory of AGW, and a 39% disagreement, with a 3% margin of error. You need around a 95% confidence interval to be absolutely sure something's occuring. The last time I read about this was in late 2003 I believe, but it might have been early 2004.

I doubt in the last five to six years there's been enough work done, enough advancement of science, and enough increase in computing power to push the confidence interval to 95%.

When 95% of scientists are in agreement, then I'll be happy to back up measures to fix the problem; until then, we need more compelling evidence.


RE: Selfish
By matt0401 on 6/25/2009 2:02:05 AM , Rating: 5
The 99% was intended to be a quick way of me saying the vast majority". But if you want to play with words, why not? Here's a quick link I pulled from Google in about 5 seconds:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-01-30-ip...

And inside the article...

"The gold-standard Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report represents "a real convergence happening here, a consensus that this is a total global no-brainer," says U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, former director of the federal government's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey.
...
Mahlman, who crafted the IPCC language used to define levels of scientific certainty, says the new report will lay the blame at the feet of fossil fuels with "virtual certainty," meaning 99% sure. That's a significant jump from "likely," or 66% sure, in the group's last report in 2001, Mahlman says. His role in this year's effort involved spending two months reviewing the more than 1,600 pages of research that went into the new assessment."

Therefore, 99% .
:)


RE: Selfish
By gorbush on 6/25/2009 8:27:26 AM , Rating: 2
I wish that Mythbuster take some effort and try assert Global Warming.

Without them I would have hard time convincing people that US realy land on moon ;). For real.


RE: Selfish
By matt0401 on 6/26/2009 4:20:45 AM , Rating: 2
You know what I actually used to think it was faked as well. Just the thought of 60's computer technology (or lack of?) pulling it off seemed far fetched. But Mythbusters' debunking of the conspiracy theories was SOLID! They did an amazing job with that.

You mention them doing global warming... I think they did. They tested the theory that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere by placing snowmen or something inside mini tarp greenhouses and pumping in gases... CO2, etc. And it was confirmed...


RE: Selfish
By gorbush on 6/26/2009 5:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
OK, thank for info. I'm pretty sure that I didn't see that episode. Now I will try to find it. Probably it is titled: "Snowman extermination" ;).


RE: Selfish
By gorbush on 6/26/2009 6:17:54 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't find before mentioned Mythbuster episode but I encountered some imitation ;):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A9Ldh1ISPw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xujkE9jJBIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r8P_N8MN4k

Quite good arguments (most of them I had known) but his knowledge isn't even full. CO2 isn't stored in oceans in dissolved form but absorbed in other forms.
quote:
Carbon dioxide, like other gases, obeys Henry’s law, which means that an increase in the atmospheric level of CO2
increases the concentration of CO2 in the surface oceans.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a chemically
unreactive gas but, when dissolved in seawater, becomes
more reactive and takes part in several chemical, physical,
biological and geological reactions, many of which are
complex.

Source: "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide" by Royal Society publishing House. Link: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk

But I read about this in some other source.


RE: Selfish
By MrPoletski on 6/30/2009 8:50:16 AM , Rating: 2
A bunch of scientists being 99% sure of something is not the same as 99% of scientists supporting the findings they are 99% sure of.

A more interesting statistic is how many of these for-AGW scientists and against-AGW scientists are actually meteorologists and climate specialists rather than physicists, chemists, marine biologists etc..

Because that is what matters... you don't send in a biologist to fix a nuclear reactor any more than you would send a dentist in to perform brain surgery.

IMHO, I think the protagonists have all the climate specialists and the doubters have everything the corporate interests that stand to loose loads (oil) could convince to jump on their band wagon.


Dumbed Downed Left Trash
By IQDOC on 6/29/2009 4:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
One doesn't need to go far before one runs into a dumbed down whacked out leftist. They open their mouth and insert their fodder and think that it's intelligence. I agree with this article and its contents, since it's been verified by scientist and not WANNABE scientist from the left. Look at the list of supposed eco-scientist and you'll find more blowhards than anybody else. Am I a Republican? NO! I'm a political Atheist, and not fooled by idiotic trash -- just a provable thesis.




RE: Dumbed Downed Left Trash
By gorbush on 6/30/2009 11:28:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm a political Atheist, and not fooled by idiotic trash

But you are both.
Can you explain why there is so many carbon burned under the surface of earth contained in coal and crude oil?
For people to main it and burn?
I don't think so.
Maybe you are an Creationist or really something else ;)?


RE: Dumbed Downed Left Trash
By General Disturbance on 7/2/2009 1:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One doesn't need to go far before one runs into a dumbed down whacked out leftist. They open their mouth and insert their fodder and think that it's intelligence. - IQDOC


RE: Dumbed Downed Left Trash
By gorbush on 7/2/2009 3:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you quote something that isn't even remotely connected with me ? I'm not leftist and I never was.

Besides don't let other think for you. Think out yourself.

Do you sincerely believe that rising CO2 concentration isn't harmful for anyone (anything)?


By General Disturbance on 7/2/2009 3:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
I absolutely do not think that the observed or predicted changes in CO2 will have a net deleterious affect on the biosphere. It will likely be globally neutral or even beneficial.


RE: Dumbed Downed Left Trash
By gorbush on 7/2/2009 3:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
And I've got something especially for you from Albert Einstein:
quote:
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.


Ummm...guys?
By MouseBTFH on 6/30/2009 11:57:17 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie...

I'm really not sure "global warming" is as settled an issue as people might think.




RE: Ummm...guys?
By gorbush on 6/30/2009 12:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
Do you think that any "scientist" can publish any finding he could "produce" for example in Nature ? No. Why. Because his work is assessed by other experts in his field. It is called Peer Review.

I suppose that he wasn't allowed to publish his "finding" under EPA name or mention any affiliation whith them.

If you could only imagine what blasphemy can publish wrongfully managed national institutes (I refer to Institute of National Remembrance publishing about Lech Walensa).
Then you will know that similar action sometimes are necessary.


RE: Ummm...guys?
By MouseBTFH on 6/30/2009 5:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
I have no idea what you're talking about. It just seems all very closed-minded to me. I don't know much about the subject (and I don't enjoy being painted in an "extremist" light, thank you very much), but it seems like there's the politically acceptable view and then there's the politically unacceptable view.

Even the people on here seem to have got quite the knack of demonizing their opponents, too.


RE: Ummm...guys?
By gorbush on 6/30/2009 6:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
I must admit that even I myself I have a problem with understanding what I wrote above ;(.

In addition, there were references that are not interesting or even possible to understand by a foreigner who you are to me ;).

I myself am not entirely convinced of the validity of the models to simulate global warming, but there is another concern to me. Namely continuous, fierce acceleration and increase of the CO2 concentration. What could have negative effects not only on the questioned global warming, but also may lead to increase the acidity of the oceans.


RE: Ummm...guys?
By gorbush on 6/30/2009 12:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
O and there is another thing.
Do you know where can I order:
"GREEN WITH ENVY: Exposing radical environmentalists' assault on Western civilization" ?
I would love to read it if it isn't to pricey ;).

Or maybe I should order instead:
"HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming" for only 7,5$.
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=1...

And there was someone in this tread who said that IPCC are bunch of people wanting to capitalize on Global Warming ;).


Not news
By Spelley on 6/24/2009 8:26:06 PM , Rating: 5
I come to Anandtech to get news. This is propaganda disguised as news, and poorly written at that.

Since you elected not to get a journalism degree (though you decry the mainstream media) let me tell you how to write news.

1) Throw out your first paragraph.

2) Tell us what AGW stands for. Or better yet, don't use it. A quick search on the internet shows that AGW is a term used by opponents of global warming. In other words, Riefenstahl, you just gave yourself away.

3) If there was any doubt of your bias till now, your last two paragraphs absolutely seal the deal. You use words like "hastily" and "scheme", and then you talk about all the bad legislation out there that this Arizona bill will oppose. How do we know it's bad? Because "industry leaders" oppose it! "Utility industries" oppose it! It will hurt the "American Citizen", the "farmers", oh no!

But what about who that "bad" legislation might help, or what it's trying to do (whether it actually will or not, but in the interests of balanced journalism)? You don't seem to have anything to say about that. NOT ONE THING.

You can write whatever you want in your crappy opinion piece. You can blame the whole whole global warming mania on liberals, UFOs, or dirty underwear. I don't care. But stay away from writing news. You aren't good at it. I've wasted enough of my time creating an account just to respond to you. Please don't waste anyone else's time.




RE: Not news
By matt0401 on 6/25/2009 12:30:41 AM , Rating: 1
Already posted so I can't vote.
+1 to this.


RE: Not news
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 9:35:23 AM , Rating: 3
Many American's oppose it. Even the one's who were dumb enough to vote for Obama and his ilk.


I Am Canadian
By deputc26 on 6/24/2009 6:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
I minored in meteorology and global warming is considered a farce by most meteorologists. The earth's temperature has always fluctuated and while I am all for not polluting and being sustainable it should be the consumer powering this movement not the government. If only we were capable of warming the earth!

I'd buy a hummer and leave the lights on to give Canada more arable land!




RE: I Am Canadian
By Boze on 6/25/2009 12:20:28 AM , Rating: 1
You know, its funny you mentioned meteorologists, because you are not the first person related to or in that field that I have heard say that. In fact, most every time a meteorologist hears about global warming, they point to an interesting chart detailing solar activity and rises and falls in Earth's temperatures.

And guess what alarmists, false do-gooders, and politically-motivated liars... when solar activity increases, so do temperatures... when solar activity decreases, so do temperatures. Who would have thought the largest source of energy in our solar system might actually have some effect on our planet?

But I get it,... I really do... for some people, this false crisis is a chance to grab at dollars from people too scared, too stupid, too lazy, or a combination of those three to actually question the science - or lack thereof. Others want to feel important... 'empowered'. Please don't make me vomit. 90% of us could drop dead tomorrow and in a 100 years no one will remember our names. The sad truth is, most of humanity isn't empowered, isn't going to change the world, isn't going to be remembered. I can live with this and move on with my life. If I'm forgotten a century after I die, my species is still gonna move forward, Earth is still gonna rotate, and the sun will still shine.

In other words people, you can't do anything about it (yet), so sit back, relax, and roll with the punches. Maybe in a couple millennia, we'll have a Dyson sphere around the sun and we'll be suckin' down its energy and we can actually have some control over global warming and cooling trends. Until that day comes, stop worrying about things you have no control over.


RE: I Am Canadian
By SpaceJumper on 6/25/2009 8:47:53 AM , Rating: 5
It is OK. Canada is going to be like Florida in the future but the rest of the US will be like Arizona and full of Hurricanes except Alaska. Enjoy.


The simplest reason
By mayorpufnstuf on 6/25/2009 6:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
The simplest reason for how everyone can recognize that GW is a phony "threat" is;
You know about it, and from governmental bodies at that. If GW were a real threat, and we "only have 10 years before the 'tipping point'," you would have never heard of such a thing as GW. You'd know about it when the ocean comes through your front door.

If an asteroid were spotted in deep space, and calculated to be on a collision course with Earth ten years from today, do you think the UN, or any governmental body, would be shouting from the rooftops that we need to do something today or we're all doomed in ten years time? Not!
You'd know about that asteroid when on June 25, 2019 you look up in the sky and see a fireball streaking across.




RE: The simplest reason
By adiposity on 6/29/2009 2:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
I see, that's an interesting logical approach.

I guess we can safely say that Iraq was not a threat. That Korea is not a threat. That Iran is not a threat. That pornography is not a threat. That drugs are not a threat. That terrorists are not a threat.

How do we know all this? The government has warned us of these things, so therefore, they must not be real threats. Whew, I can sleep better now.

-Dan


RE: The simplest reason
By General Disturbance on 7/2/2009 1:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
lol you bonehead...

Iraq WASN'T a threat. Korea ISN'T a threat. Iran ISN'T a threat. "Terrorists" kill less people than the common cold.
And drugs and porn are something bonehead parent's should be keeping their kids away from themselves. Raise sh*tty kids over-mediated to the "glamour" of drugs and porn, there's your drugs and porn problem.


RE: The simplest reason
By gorbush on 7/2/2009 3:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
For the firs time I admit that I agree with you on this subject ;(.


Statistics and precaution
By bernardl on 6/25/2009 9:03:24 AM , Rating: 2
Can we be 100% sure that man causes climat change? No.

It is likely enough that we ought to take measures? Yes.

Cheers,
Bernard




By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 1:12:02 PM , Rating: 4
Manbearpig.


Bad bad hybrids
By JEEPMON on 6/26/2009 2:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, since water vapor is the DOMINANT greenhouse 'gas' then all the hybrid and hydrogen powered vehicles that produce water (and water vapor) as an emission are contributing more to the greenhouse effect and global warming then a dirty diesel or gasoline powered bus or truck!




RE: Bad bad hybrids
By gorbush on 6/26/2009 2:49:05 AM , Rating: 2
Besides the fact that only hydrogen powered cars produce water vapor which is dominant greenhouse gas there isn't any study which I know that would even try to estimate how much of it is human doing.


RE: Bad bad hybrids
By PitViper007 on 6/30/2009 12:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the good ol' gasoline internal combustion engine produces water vapor as a byproduct of burning its fuel. It doesn't produce near the amount as a hydrogen fueled engine would certainly, but it does produce it.


conclave
By nathanvaneps on 6/24/2009 7:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
I wish all the climatologists would get together in a giant conclave and come to some consensus. Lock them all in a room and have them logic each other to death. Then I wouldn't have to try to read all these reports. Then I could just trust the consensus. Then I wouldn't have to worry about people with agendas. :(




RE: conclave
By kyleb2112 on 6/24/2009 8:13:56 PM , Rating: 3
There would be no consensus and you'd be a fool to trust it if there was.


I agree with them but for different reasons
By AEvangel on 6/24/2009 5:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is a good move and I hope other states enact it. The only one truly benefiting from legislation aimed at fighting Global Warming or Climate change whatever they are calling it now is big business. They are the major lobbies for this type of legislation.

Don't get me wrong I do think we can all do something to reduce are carbon footprint as it were, but I think allot of this legislation being pushed through under the guise of save the planet is silly and unproven to have any real benefit other then lining the pockets of big business and costing the tax payer money.




By gorbush on 6/27/2009 6:40:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't get me wrong I do think we can all do something to reduce are carbon footprint as it were, but I think allot of this legislation being pushed through under the guise of save the planet is silly and unproven to have any real benefit other then lining the pockets of big business and costing the tax payer money.

But will you for example lower your electrical power consumption by say 25% ?
I don't think so.

Everything is in human nature. Only a minority will respect the rules if there are no clear and inevitable punishment.


those who do not know history...
By deadrats on 6/24/2009 7:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
...are doomed to repeat it.

this quote from this article:

quote:
Climate change is a controversial topic. Some believe man is causing the world to warm. Others point out that the Earth has undergone solar warming and cooling for millions of years and that current temperatures are well within historic levels. A recent report challenging AGW theory showed significant support with 31,478 U.S. researchers and scientists, many of whom hold Ph.D's, signing a statement that they believe that man has not played a part in the current warming trend.


reminds me of this:

http://ecohearth.com/component/content/article/474...

i think we all know who turned out to be right.




RE: those who do not know history...
By walk2k on 6/24/2009 8:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
Water vapor
By jimbojimbo on 6/25/2009 2:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
Funny how everyone that thinks man is creating global warming loves talking about carbon and greenhouse gasses but they never bring up the fact that water vapor is the most abundant and most affecting greenhouse gas there is. Oh yeah, it's a lot harder to blame people for water vapor and thusly tax the hell out of them.




RE: Water vapor
By gorbush on 6/25/2009 5:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
No one never bring up the fact that water vapor is the most abundant and most affecting greenhouse gas there is because it is almost impossible to determine human impact on creating it. But there is some: tower coolers, sulphur oxides removal installation, hot baths, heated swimming pools, grass sprinklers? and so long.

And besides do you know what kind of gas is labeled as "SF6". This is approximately 24000 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. In 2006 it's production worldwide where about 6kT which roughly translates to 144 mmt of CO2 if it would be released to atmosphere.


Arizona global warming
By zottelig88 on 7/2/2009 1:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well it is nice to see my state take the front in not going along with this fake global warming scandle going around. Dont you people realize this is all a political scheme. The idea that humans carbon is changing the climate is rediculousw research yourself if you dont believe me or the other 31,ooo + scientist. here is a link watch and research http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog...




RE: Arizona global warming
By gorbush on 7/2/2009 3:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
I would be glad if you could pay more attention and a least try to read and think trough some of my post in this tread rather than put a link to some film with wrongful facts. I couldn't watch it for even 5 minutes to not laugh.


I'm moving
By Bull Dog on 6/24/2009 9:41:36 PM , Rating: 3
If this goes through I'm moving to Arizona.




thank you arizona
By johnsonx on 6/25/2009 5:17:04 AM , Rating: 3
Perhaps this will be remembered as a major turning point in the fight against the Church of Global Warming. There will be many more setbacks, but hopefully this tiny victory will be the first of many.

Thank you Arizona!




Awesome!
By General Disturbance on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome!
By gorbush on 6/27/2009 6:31:22 AM , Rating: 2
My ultimate summary of this tread:
Even if AGW is mountain of horse crap, there are some hard data which indicates human impact on nature. But people who has have the most to lose and the most to do aren’t willing to do almost anything with this situation and are searching for something (someone) to dump the blame on.

quote:

Global Warming is occurring but happens in cycles. The sun is the cause of global warming.. not man.


Wrong.
As I recall NASA didn't found any evident connection between sun cycles and GW.
quote:

In any case, I don't like being taxed because of some theory.


CO2 concentration rising isn't theoretical. It's happening and there is no apparent solution to stop it in the future especially when the biggest contributor doesn't want to lower his share.

Besides AGW there is at least one more negative aspect of high CO2 concentration:
"Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide"
Literature:
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=1331...

Rising CO2 concentration is human fault in 100%.

Proofs from DOE 2004 rapport:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/05730...

Table 1 . Very interesting part.
World Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Region, 1990-2002 (excerpt)
US from 5,778 to 6,696 mmt = 15,9% increase !
Western Europe from 3,413 to 3,549 mmt = 4% increase .
Former Soviet Union from 3,798 to 2,399 mmt = 36,7% decrease !
Eastern Europe from 1,095 to 726 mmt = 33% decrease .
I shouldn't even show emerging Asia but there are mostly production facilities for western countries.
Emerging Asia (China, India,...) from 3,890 to 6,205 mmt = 59,5% increase !

Table 3. "Current" (1990s) data for GLOBAL CO2 emission:
nature produce : 770 mmt annually
man-made: 23.1 mmt annually
a bsorption by nature: 781.4 mmt annually.

Increase of CO2 gas: 11.7 mmt .
Human fault: 100%.


By vectrav2 on 6/24/2009 7:25:22 PM , Rating: 3
I think Arizona is great in illegal immigration but out of its mind on global warming.
There is essentially no disagreement in the scientific community that the biggest cause of global warming is mans burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

In this I guess they are only listening to the crowd who think the earth is flat and only 6000 years old.

What a bunch of @#$%&*




Global Warming
By btc909 on 6/24/2009 8:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
So if I agree to pay extra in a numerous number of ways to fight global warming & it turns out to be a bunch of bunk I get a refund right?




Threatcore showing this article
By JimboK29 on 6/24/2009 8:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
Threatcore has this story on the top of their page and another global warming story from dailytech. Biased?




By SublimeSimplicity on 6/24/2009 8:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
If they're right and MMGW is a bunch of bunk, think of all the money they'll have saved. They may come out as the richest state in the "union".

If they're wrong and made the situation worse, they'll simply melt when summer highs go from 120 degrees to 200 degrees. No long term suffering, and well before anyone could say, "I told you so".




By NovaCain820 on 6/25/2009 8:45:23 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone always seems to get so bent out of shape when this comes up. So as something of a reference, take a look at this paper.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/p...

Unfortunatly, this is along the lines of an extremist paper, which makes the author's overall opinion slightly less relevant, however; the documents referenced are real scientific evidence that should be considered. (specifically pg 16-30) My point in showing this is that, no one source should ultimately be believed to be truth. Speaking of a global consensus among scientists, is along lines of believing every thing you see on TV. Wash away preconceptions and always be inquisitive even if its not always something pleasant to hear. The truth is both groups are working towards an end and they have backers that pay them to be scientists and write papers, in the same way lobbyist follow politicians. As to my opinion, renew-ability and safety of our progeny is the end goal, but inducing panic and fear (into consuming more arable land, and buying into more cash cows) is something we must strive to avoid.

For reference the author is a bit outlandish on some of his views and is exceedingly right wing, however his solution for renewable energy was quoted as "work towards reversing 20Th century deforestation and go nuclear for power" frankly with new reactors such as the following, that's not such a bad idea.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uot... (short article)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR... (full paper on new reactor, thank you Daily Tech for the link)




I blame Al Gore!
By chunkymonster on 6/25/2009 11:15:31 AM , Rating: 2
First, this article is about AZ passing a law; which I thought was an interesting approach to save the people of AZ from having to foot the bill for implemeting solutions to an unproven and controversial "science". More States should follow AZ's example.

But to join in the fray, the infamous hockey stick graph is all the rage and I personally blame Al Gore! If it wasn't for that BS movie "An Inconvenient Truth" and Al's political agenda and need to latch onto a hot button topic like this to further his own political career, the majority of the folks posting to this thread that support man made global warming would still be blissfully ignorant of the world around them and would have latched onto some other hot button topic to give their life meaning. Much like Al's political career, the topic of global warming and/or climate change will fall by the wayside once another popular political figure decides to make a stink about the next hot button issue. Let's just hope there isn't a BS self aggrandizing movie to go along with it.

I still can't believe they gave Al a Nobel Prize for his so called work on global warming...but hey, if that's what it takes to push these self promoting politicos and their agendas out of the public spotlight, I'm all for it!




By jimbojimbo on 6/25/2009 2:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
It amazes me how AGW proponents completely ignore the sun. Their science comprises completely of Earth and its atmosphere with no thought that anything else could affect the planet. They probably believe the entire universe revolves around the Earth as well and this planet solely influences everything about it.

Wake up, people. The tiny little Earth revolves around the giganticly powerful sun that completely determines whether Earth can sustain life or not. The S-U-N.

Carbon taxes are just an excuse to tax the hell out of everybody under the pretext that they're trying to save us. That way the taxes are for good right? Arizona is waking up, I hope the rest of the world does.




Great News!
By EricMartello on 6/25/2009 4:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
I am happy to see that real action is being taken against these global warming/climate change fanatics. The last thing I want to be is forced into this new religion. People used to get all swept away by priests who were vessels for god...and now the priests are liberal scientists on an ego trip.

The real problem is that sheeple are too stupid to understand REAL science, but the pseudo science that is the new bible is dumbed down enough to make sense to the typical idiot. Real science is understood; pseudo science is believed.




Follow the money...
By mayorpufnstuf on 6/25/2009 5:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
Here is the reason not to trust the data coming from the IPCC;

The primary purpose of the IPCC is to supply data to the UNFCCC. It is the UNFCCC that produced the framework for mitigating AGW.
What is the framework for mitigating AGW? Pray tell, all the AGW supporters... It's the so-called Cap and Trade. It's the puchasing of carbon credits. Nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme.
So, the UNFCCC cooked up a scheme to put a price tag on GW, and the IPCC, another UN body, supplies the data to "prove" that GW is actually AGW. Because you can't send Mother Nature a bill.
Are these bodies charged with actually doing anything? No. They're not charged with facilitating R&D work. Or helping to bring "green technologies" to market. Or even using some of these carbon credit funds to facilitate those things. Oh, but they're soooo concerned with the state of the planet.
All they've done is cooked up the scheme for the movement of money.




By vectrav2 on 6/25/2009 8:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
Boze,

I do not know of a single Independent Peer Reviewed scientific paper that significantly disagrees with my comment.
If you know of one I would be pleased to read it.




By Karlzbad on 6/25/2009 8:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
Let's have global warming deniers swear to live in the Southwest for the next 50 years.




Does anyone care about Facts?
By RealMoney on 6/30/2009 3:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
More to the point in this whole discussion is this report from the EPA NCEE questioning the government and IPCC consensus, the data and the conclusions:

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004...

OUr own government is questioning the validity of the data and hence the current debate. We're moving to spend trillions, lose jobs and for what? A guess? It would be nice if the pro-AGW scientists and supporters would actually have a scientific debate instead of science by majority rule.




Arizona
By wallijonn on 7/1/2009 1:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
I just wish that AZ would institute heavy fines for obvious polluters and make it mandatory for yearly emissions testing. Part of our problem is that we get snow birds from the West who come here for the winter and their cars may not meet emissions standards. Anyone coming over the border from another state should have to submit to an emissions test. If they fail it then they can't drive it.

Add in the fact that there are a few states without any emissions testing or standards whatsoever and it is easy to see that if all the states accepted the California CARB standards the air would probably be much cleaner in the States.

Coal burning electrical plants are another problem altogether and will probably need much technology to be politically viable to the coal producing states.

Those who have a problem with AZ trying to curb electrical company profits should first move here. Chances are your bills will be four times higher than what you are paying now. Now imagine paying 10 times higher than you are paying now. We don't do much in the way of home heating oil but we do a lot in the way of electrical power for running our air conditioners.

It's a shame that AZ, the Sunshine State, doesn't employ solar panels or drive the technology like Germany does. To build that infrastructure will take billions, which will most probably be palmed off to the end customer in the way of higher electricity bills by the electricity companies. That's what AZ is fighting against. We had our solar panel bills in the past and it was an abject failure due to corruption. We don't want to repeat the same mistake twice. Nor do we want what California went through. So we're overly cautious.




Arizona
By ZachDontScare on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
By Spuke on 6/24/2009 6:10:56 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The IPCC says global warming is happening
I keep seeing "reports" that the IPCC says one thing then someone else posts that the IPCC says something else entirely. I have given up on getting any real, factual information on Global Warming/Climate Change and, quite frankly, I don't care anymore. It's turned into a religious/political BS debate instead of what should be a discussion of and clarification of scientific studies, facts, and processes. I will no longer participate in these discussions because they're just ridiculous. I feel dumber for even posting this. Good luck and may God have mercy on your souls.


By KaTaR on 6/24/2009 6:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
By Oregonian2 on 6/24/2009 9:00:50 PM , Rating: 4
The report linked to, as well as others I've read say that by far and away the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor and further that humans affect the amount of it in the atmosphere very very little (graphs show how people affect the minor gasses a lot, but I've never (so far) seen a nice color chart showing how those human-affected greenhouse gasses are a subportion of the overall amount -- including the water vapor huge amount).

Now, they do seem to try and make seemingly catch-22 arguments that if people can affect weather change and make things warmer, then that'll increase water vapor which in turn will create the warmer weather that "we" did in the first place. Not sure I understand those seemingly circular arguments.


By bdot on 6/25/2009 12:53:41 PM , Rating: 4
Wikipidia article on global warming... you should stop now.


By gorbush on 6/25/2009 8:08:29 AM , Rating: 2
Define very little.
Water vapor is dominant only in lower atmosphere. In higher parts air is almost dry.

I'm not sure but I really didn't see any study about human impact on water vapor concentration. But I suppose that it is growing more and more. Why?. I've got some data about new installation removing sulphur oxides from coal power plant fumes. Those are becoming more common in UE (that is for environment protection).

For about 330MW output power "IOS" (I don't know how it is called in English) use about 100t of water per hour (1GWh ~ 300 ton of water).There are some IOS that don't use water but they are less efficient. In Poland there is 32GW of power available but mean use is about 15GW and almost every GWh comes from coal. By extrapolating 15GW*24hours*365days*300t equals 39Gt annually (much more then CO2 production). And it is only for small country with about 3000MWh/month per household power needs. I'm almost sure that also in US power is mainly generated from coal and I suppose there is many IOS installation.

I'm not GW advocate or even believer but I can't stand people stating false or selective argument. Besides it is better be careful than sorry.
Where I live there is almost non natural disasters and temperature is quite low ;) but if I would have some property in Florida I would consider moving out. Why? If there is more energy (temperature) in atmosphere then there would be more dangerous disasters cause by weather.

And pleas vote down post from General Disturbance becouse his arguments where proof wrong in 1940 ;).


By General Disturbance on 6/25/2009 12:39:53 PM , Rating: 3
I believe I am referencing a common tag line found at the bottom of D-T posts:

quote:
If you rate me down I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine


haha! Who that belongs to is just on the tip of my tongue...can't quite remember it. Anyone?


By gorbush on 6/25/2009 3:21:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I believe I am referencing a common tag line found at the bottom of D-T posts:

I'm not new comer to DT and I assume that quote would be from Masher ;).
But that proofs completely nothing.
I'm not an scientist (so aren't you) especially not climatologist. I'm only interested in GW theories because I want best possible future for my children (and grandchildren) and if that mean that I must restrain my natural resources consumption then let it be.

I must say that it is first time that I ever heard about “spectral saturation” of CO2. After reading some more on this subject (research done almost 100 years ago) I'm almost convinced that if it would be true then that argument would be used to fight Kyoto agreement. And as far as I know it isn't. From this I suppose that if that argument would be made in more scientific community than DT readers (no offence) then it would be laughed at.


By gorbush on 6/25/2009 4:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
As you probably know I can't rate you down because I post in this thread but I would otherwise.
But I challenge you to be more insightful than I can possibly imagine. Wright know you aren't even close ;).

I "fought" many verbal skirmish with speculation theories (not every one won). There were times that I believed some for example Anti Global Worming, US never landed on moon and some more. Partially because GW would be beneficial for me ;) and I live close to old Soviet Union. Common denominator: personal interest. Therefore I'm not surprised that some US citizens fight so furiously GW theory but not GW itself :( especially if I take into account that approximately 3% world population use up to 25% of global resources. But I'm not entirely sure if this percentage didn't go down because of China.


By borismkv on 6/25/2009 4:35:19 PM , Rating: 3
Remember. Two wrongs don't make a right. But two Wrights did make an airplane.


By gorbush on 6/25/2009 4:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yes you are right. But also wrong argument isn't argument at all. Like "spectral saturation" of CO2 or "32000 leading scientist" opposing AGW.

Quote: "As for the new claim of 32,000 leading scientists who are skeptics, unless you are using some very broad measure of what a scientist is, that is impossible. What I mean is that there aren't enough climate scientists in the world for that to be even remotely true. Not when about 99% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC. What are they including as scientists, doctors, engineers, psychologists? They couldn't possibly be climate scientists, other than a handful. The numbers just don't add up. The claim is rediculous. This claim includes the numbers from the Oregon Petition. By the way, Robinson and his son are the source of the phony Wall St. Journal article as well. Neither one is a climate scientist."

Source: "http://energysolutionswecanbelievein.blogspot.com/..."


By TSS on 6/24/2009 9:21:36 PM , Rating: 5
the reason for not trusting the IPCC is v